|
|||||
|
PERB Rebuffs Challenge To Parole Union In August 2004, the New York State Parole Officers' Benevolent Association (NYSPOBA) filed a petition with PERB seeking to represent the bargaining unit of approximately 1,200 Parole Officers and other related titles. NYSPOBA contended that the Parole Officer title is a law-enforcement position that doesn't belong in a union that primarily represents civilian positions. Took Shots At PEF The group also argued that PEF has inadequately represented the titles, and that the employees involved have a unique community of interest warranting their removal from the professional, scientific, and technical bargaining unit. NYSPOBA said that the Parole Officer title should be placed in the Administrative Law Enforcement Services Unit, which is currently represented by Council 82 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. With the approval of all the parties, PERB Administrative Law Judge David P. Quinn bifurcated the hearing in order to decide the law-enforcement issue first. "Frankly, we believed that this was NYSPOBA's best argument, so it made sense to deal with it up front," a PEF letter to union officers stated. After five hearings were held in 2005 and 2006, ALJ Quinn ruled Feb. 12 that Parole Officers are not primarily engaged in "the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state." He noted that they are sometimes engaged in dangerous work. But he concluded that they are essentially responsible for promoting "public safety by preparing inmates for release and supervising parolees to the successful completion of their sentences." NYSPOBA now has the option to withdraw its petition, essentially conceding the case. Or it can move forward with its two other arguments that it has made concerning the fragmentation issue. The union can also appeal the interim decision to the PERB's Board.
| |||||