§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of City of Schenectady, Appellant,v.New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. In re N.Y.C. Transit Auth. v. Transport Workers U

    99 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "although the awards directed reinstatement of the employees, they clearly did not disregard safety concerns and the seriousness of the breaches of safety rules. Instead, they imposed serious financial sanctions in both cases"

  2. Board of Educ. v. Ambach

    70 N.Y.2d 501 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 140 times
    Holding that in the absence of a breach of the union's duty of fair representation, the failure to exhaust all contractual remedies, including arbitration bars the employee's right to sue the employer directly

  3. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of City of New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2288 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 62 times
    Noting that "the application of the Taylor Law to particular facts [is] an area in which PERB is entitled to deference"

  4. Bd. of Educ., Huntington v. Teachers

    30 N.Y.2d 122 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Huntington, we held that a lumpsum retirement incentive was not a feature of a "retirement system", which section 113 of the Retirement and Social Security Law forbade the municipality to create, because it was compensation for services actually rendered.

  5. Matter of City of Watertown

    95 N.Y.2d 73 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "absent clear evidence that the Legislature intended otherwise, the presumption is that all terms and conditions of employment are subject to mandatory bargaining"

  6. Charter Dev. Co. v. Buffalo

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3442 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses

    53. Argued March 22, 2006. Decided May 2, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered April 29, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and Real Property Tax Law article 7, which, on respondents' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissed the

  7. Town of Islip v. N.Y. State Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4043 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 29 times

    2014-06-5 In the Matter of TOWN OF ISLIP, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al., Respondents. Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC, Garden City (Ernest R. Stolzer, Hilary L. Moreira and Christopher T. Kurtz of counsel), for appellant. David P. Quinn, Albany, for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, respondent. READ Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC, Garden City (Ernest R. Stolzer, Hilary L. Moreira and Christopher T. Kurtz of counsel), for appellant. David P. Quinn, Albany

  8. Board of Educ. of Yonkers

    40 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declaring public policy does not prevent public employer from agreeing to set size of work force during term of agreement

  9. Board of Education of City School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

    75 N.Y.2d 660 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 65 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "in a few instances, however, what might otherwise be negotiable terms and conditions of employment are prohibited from being collectively bargained. For example, a statute may direct that certain action be taken by the employer, leaving no room for negotiation."

  10. Chenango Forks Cent. Sch. Dist. v. State Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4039 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 27 times

    No. 104 06-06-2013 In the Matter of Chenango Forks Central School District, Appellant, v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board et al., Respondents. Lars P. Mead, for appellant. David P. Quinn, for respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board. Frederick K. Reich, for respondent Chenango Forks Teachers Association. READ Lars P. Mead, for appellant. David P. Quinn, for respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board. Frederick K. Reich, for respondent Chenango

  11. Section 205.6 - Objections to arbitrability

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 4 § 205.6   Cited 2 times

    (a)Objections to arbitrability. Objections to the arbitrability of any matter set forth in the petition or response may only be raised by the filing of an improper practice charge or a declaratory ruling petition pursuant to the requirements of this section. Objections as to arbitrability may include, but not be limited to, the following circumstances: (1) a matter proposed is not a mandatory subject of negotiations; (2) a matter proposed was not the subject of negotiations prior to the petition;