New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Service Law § 207 (2026)

Determination of representation status

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 207. Determination of representation status. For purposes of
resolving disputes concerning representation status, pursuant to section
two hundred five or two hundred six of this article, the board or
government, as the case may be, shall
  1. define the appropriate employer-employee negotiating units taking
into account the following standards:
  (a) the definition of the unit shall correspond to a community of
interest among the employees to be included in the unit;
  (b) the officials of government at the level of the unit shall have
the power to agree, or to make effective recommendations to other
administrative authority or the legislative body with respect to, the
terms and conditions of employment upon which the employees desire to
negotiate; and
  (c) the unit shall be compatible with the joint responsibilities of
the public employer and public employees to serve the public.
  2. ascertain the public employees' choice of employee organization as
their representative (in cases where the parties to a dispute have not
agreed on the means to ascertain the choice, if any, of the employees in
the unit) on the basis of dues deduction authorization and other
evidences, or, if necessary, by conducting an election.
  3. certify or recognize an employee organization upon (a) the
determination that such organization represents that group of public
employees it claims to represent, and (b) the affirmation by such
organization that it does not assert the right to strike against any
government, to assist or participate in any such strike, or to impose an
obligation to conduct, assist or participate in such a strike.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1985–2011 · leading case: State v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 114 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 114 A.D.2d 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 6× “(CSEA) applied to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to Civil Service Law § 207, for certification as the bargaining representative of the employees of the State Insurance Department Liquidation Bureau (Bureau).”

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York, 874 N.E.2d 706 (NY 2007). · cites it 2× “Supreme Court similarly tried to characterize Local Laws 18 and 19 as somehow substituting for Civil Service Law § 207, a Taylor Law provision that a local legislature may supplant with its own substantially equivalent provisions and procedures.”

Inc. Vill. of Hempstead v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 137 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 2× “That case involved an appeal from a decision of respondent which found the petitioner to be a public employer for purposes of a representation proceeding under Civil Service Law § 207. A CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced challenging respondent’s decision, which was…”

Inc. Vill. of Lake Success v. New York State Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 41 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “ation of the respondent New York State Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB), confirming the determination of an administrative law judge, made after a hearing, granting the petition of the Civil Service Employees Association (hereinafter the CSEA) to place the…”

Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. New York State Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 300 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “PERB also maintains that its determination to permit rather than deny fragmentation here more closely conforms with the Taylor Law’s mandate that “the definition of the unit shall correspond to a community of interest among the employees to be included in the unit” (Civil…”

Crosson v. Newman, 178 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “Initially, we reject petitioner’s contention that PERB’s finding that a "community of interest” (see, Civil Service Law § 207 [1] [a]) existed between Hearing Examiners and employees in CSEA’s bargaining units was arbitrary and capricious.”

Civil Serv. Employees Ass'n v. Nassau Cnty. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 A.D.2d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “The decision of the Nassau County Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB) granting the petition for certification of the Sheriffs’ Officers Association (hereinafter SOA) to fragment and create a separate bargaining unit was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see,…”

New York City Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 55 A.D.3d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 3× “motion to reinstate their right to deduct union dues from the paychecks of their members employed by the plaintiffs and required them to submit, with any future application to reinstate that right, affidavits from the President and each individual member of the *700 Executive…”

Nassau Cmty. Coll. Fed'n of Teachers v. Nassau Cnty. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 173 A.D.2d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “upport PERB’s determination that a community of interest exists between the members of the Adjunct Faculty Association of Nassau Community College (hereinafter AFA), all of whom teach adjunct courses at Nassau Community College, and that the present makeup of AFA does not…”

Westchester Cnty. Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 169 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “We agree with petitioner that PERB’s February 25, 1999 determination is ripe for CPLR article 78 review because we view it as final regarding the primary issue in this proceeding— *848 whether grievances under article 1.”

Crosson v. Newman, 149 Misc. 2d 499 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990). · cites it 2× “” (Civil Service Law § 207 [1] [a], [c].) As written, these standards relate to the composition of the units, they do not authorize the making of a.”

Pfau v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 89 A.D.3d 1205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 5× “Furthermore, unit placement and/or clarification is based upon statutory criteria that do not include the preferences of individual employees (compare Civil Service Law § 207 [1] with Civil Service Law § 207 [2]; see 4 NYCRR 201.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.