perb motion in New York

2025Upon review, this Court denied PERB's motion to dismiss the petition on the basis that PERB was improperly seeking a merits-based determination of the petition in the context of a pre-answer motion and remitted the matter to Supreme Court to allow PERB to file an answer ( 213 AD3d 1186 [3d Dept 2023]).

2023Auth. , 274 AD2d 581, 581-582 ).

2004In addition, the recognition that the statute itself (Civil Service Law § 205 [5] [k]) authorizes issuance of subpoenas by attorneys and the Supreme Court thus moots consideration whether PERB's rule, also allowing such issuance (4 NYCRR 211.1 [b]), constitutes an ultra vires act.{** 2 Misc 3d at 965 } UCS further argues the irrelevancy of the records to the underlying PERB matter and the burdensome nature of their production.

2002Consequently, PERB’s analysis is not entitled to the same deference as is normally afforded the interpretation of a statute by an administrative body charged with the duty of interpreting its provisions (Appelbaum v Deutsch, 66 NY2d 975, 977 ; Matter of Cathedral of Incarnation v Glimm, 61 NY2d 826 , affg 97 AD2d 409, 410 ; Matter of Burke v Denison, 218 AD2d 894, 895-896 ).

2002School Dist., 247 AD2d 676, 678 ).

2002Consequently, PERB’s analysis is not entitled to the same deference as is normally afforded the interpretation of a statute by an administrative body charged with the duty of interpreting its provisions (Appelbaum v Deutsch, 66 NY2d 975, 977 ; Matter of Cathedral of Incarnation v Glimm, 61 NY2d 826 , affg 97 AD2d 409, 410 ; Matter of Burke v Denison, 218 AD2d 894, 895-896 ).

2002Consequently, PERB’s analysis is not entitled to the same deference as is normally afforded the interpretation of a statute by an administrative body charged with the duty of interpreting its provisions (Appelbaum v Deutsch, 66 NY2d 975, 977 ; Matter of Cathedral of Incarnation v Glimm, 61 NY2d 826 , affg 97 AD2d 409, 410 ; Matter of Burke v Denison, 218 AD2d 894, 895-896 ).

2002Consequently, PERB’s analysis is not entitled to the same deference as is normally afforded the interpretation of a statute by an administrative body charged with the duty of interpreting its provisions (Appelbaum v Deutsch, 66 NY2d 975, 977 ; Matter of Cathedral of Incarnation v Glimm, 61 NY2d 826 , affg 97 AD2d 409, 410 ; Matter of Burke v Denison, 218 AD2d 894, 895-896 ).

1988After observing that the right to organize is illusory if employees "can be fired * * * upon rumblings that qualitatively fall short of PERB’s standard [of what constitutes an employee organization]”, the court noted that the agency’s interpretation would have a chilling effect upon others initiating concerted activity ( 128 Misc 2d 628, 633 ).

1985“The right to self-organization depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages of self-organizatian from others.” (Labor Bd. v Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 US 105, 113 .) Is a demonstration of individual courage on behalf of other employees any less instructive of the worth of collective action than the sterile, initial formal meeting in furtherance of unionization?

1977In this sphere PERB is vested with the exclusive nondelegable jurisdiction to prevent such practices (Civil Service Law, § 205, subd 5, par [d]), and it is irrelevant to its determination whether or not cause for the employer’s action in terminating Strokes actually existed (Sag Harbor Union Free School Dist. v Helsby, 54 AD2d 391 , app dsmd March 23, 1977; see, also, Matter of City of Albany v Helsby, 29 NY2d 433).