The union representing Jamestown’s Public Works Department employees is asking the state Supreme Court to enforce an arbitrator’s ruling.

AFSCME New York Council 66, Local 418, filed an Article 75 proceeding in state Supreme Court in Mayville on Thursday. The union is asking the court to require the city to pay back pay associated with a union grievance stemming from a promotion dispute. Arbitrator Douglas Bantle issued a decision on Aug. 8, and the union is unhappy no action has been taken in the month after the decision was issued.

“This petition to confirm the award has become necessary as a result of the city and its recalcitrant supervisors’ refusal, without justification, to honor and implement the full award of Arbitrator Bantle in this matter,” wrote attorney Jeffrey N. Mis, the union’s lawyer. “The blatant refusal by the city to honor and implement the award of Arbitrator Bantle is being done with no legal basis and contrary to the process negotiated by the union and the city in their collective bargaining agreement.”

THE ISSUE

Bantle was asked to mediate a dispute between the city and one of its Public Works Department mechanics who felt he had been unfairly passed over for a promotion in violation of Civil Service rules. The employee had a higher seniority ranking than the employee DPW officials chose for an open Mechanic IV position in the Fleet Maintenance Division. Department heads and managers decided to promote the less senior employee, saying the senior employee didn’t have the required skill or ability for the Mechanic IV position.

City officials also raised issues of the senior employee’s seniority within the Fleet Management Division. While the aggrieved employee had seniority in the Public Works Department, the other employee had seniority in the Fleet Management Division.

“The issue of separate divisions within the bargaining unit has been raised for different situations in the past,” Patrick Monaghan, city fleet manager, wrote in a February 2022 letter to William Griffith, AFSCME Local 418 union steward, in a letter regarding the grievance. “While the concept of divisional seniority is not explicitly stated in the CBA, it is nevertheless recognized and practiced in the daily operations of each division, particularly with overtime lists and temporary backfilling of positions, such as during the absence of a crew chief. In those cases, seniority is recognized among the members within the division, not the entire bargaining unit. If there is tacit acknowledgement of separate divisions by this practice, then it should also be recognized by giving members priority consideration for promotions that arise within their own divisions.”

The grievance proceeded quickly through the first two steps of the grievance process laid out in the city’s contract with the union. The third step was delayed roughly two months, with discussions over the issue happening until the June 28 appointment of Bantle to arbitrate the dispute.

THE DECISION

Bantle decided the sides agreed on the basic facts at issue, agreeing the issue centered on how contract language should be interpreted. City arguments included that it could not be expected to meet timeframes included in the contract without all the required documentation being submitted for each step to proceed. Bantle found there was no such language in the contract between the union and city, nor had those issues been raised during the process.

Ultimately, the arbitrator decided, there was no issue to be decided because the city did not meet the contractually agreed upon timelines in each of the three grievances before him.

“The city did not provide the contractually required responses and/or meetings in a timely manner,” Bantle wrote in his decision. “Therefore, the union’s position, on each of the grievances, ‘will be considered the grievance’s resolution by default.'” … This arbitrator finds that the union has provided sufficient evidence to sustain its position in regard to the three grievances. Therefore, the union’s grievances are sustained. That is my award.”