RITU Foremen Ratify New Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Congratulations are again in order for the Railway Independent Transit Union, to its President Shaam Somwaru, its board and all its members serving as Foremen at the Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) railroad.

On October 18, 2022, the Foremen overwhelmingly ratified a new collective bargaining agreement. This was the first CBA since the Foremen elected to forego representation by the American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association (“ARASA”) and, instead, join the RITU.  That occurred on March 4, 2020, a time when it had been eight years since the Foremen’s CBA had expired.

In reaching this agreement RITU was able to preserve and strengthen the Foremen’s health and pension benefits and secure immediate increases in wages of over 30% with full retroactivity.

President Somwaru assumed the RITU Presidency during 2021 upon the retirement of his predecessor.

This is the third successful collective bargaining agreement reached by President Somwaru this year after nearly a decade of deadlocked negotiations for all three RITU bargaining units.

Howard Wien of IDC&W served as counsel to RITU during RITU’s collective bargaining.

IDCWLaw Reviews New York State’s New Gun Laws, by IDCWLaw Partners Liam L. Castro & Cynthia Devasia.

In July 2022, New York State enacted a law restricting one’s ability to carry a concealed weapon within the State.  Many of our clients are retired peace officers.  Since this law impacts them, here is some useful information on how it does.

Does S.51001/A.41001 permit retired peace officers to carry a ”firearm”, “rifle” or “shotgun” in “sensitive” or “restricted” locations?  

Except as explained below, the answer is no, S.51001/A.41001 does not permit retired peace officers to carry these weapons in “sensitive” or “restricted” locations.  In two places of the recent amendment it exempts from the statute retired “police officers”, but excludes the phrase retired “peace officers”.  Specifically, the amendment states in two places that it does not apply to “persons who were employed as police officers as defined in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, but are retired.”  It also states it does not apply to “persons who were employed as police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law but are retired”.  If this statute intended to include retired “peace officers” it would have stated as such as it did with retired “police officers.”  It did not include the phrase “peace officers who have retired”, or words to that effect.  Thus, retired peace officers are not exempt, except as explained below.

Does S.51001/A.41001 permit retired peace officers to carry a ”firearm”, “rifle” or “shotgun” in “sensitive” or “restricted” locations if that retiree is permitted to carry the same under federal law?

It is likely that a retired peace officer may carry a “firearm, “rifle” or “shotgun”  in a “sensitive” location if they are permitted to carry the same under section 926C.  S.51001/A.41001 plainly prohibits anyone from carrying the above weapons in “sensitive” locations.  It states, “[a] person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun in a sensitive location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or upon a sensitive location, and such person knows or reasonably should know such location is a sensitive location.”  However, that specific section “shall not apply to: (a) consistent with federal law, law enforcement who qualify to carry under the federal law enforcement officers safety act, 18 U.S.C. 926C”. 

Under section 926C, a “qualified retired law enforcement officer” is, generally, allowed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the US and authorized territories notwithstanding most other state and local laws. A qualified retired law enforcement officer, is one who, among other things:                                       

1.           separated from service in good standing with a government agency as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of at least ten years or, after probation, separated from service because of a service-connected disability, but not otherwise deemed unable to serve because of a mental health issue; and     

2.           was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the incarceration of any person for any violation of law.

The retired law enforcement officer must also carry with him or her:

1.           identification received from the agency from which they retired; and

2.           documentation certifying that within the last 12 months they met the active duty law enforcement standards for the firearm that they carry. 

Section 926C does not preclude, however, a state from prohibiting firearms onto State or local governmental property, or to permit private entities to prohibit firearms on their private property.  It appears, however, that under S.51001/A.41001, one is not guilty of illegal possession if they are qualified to carry under section 926C if they enter a “sensitive” location.  

Unlike “sensitive” locations, however, “restricted” locations appear not to exclude those able to carry under 926C.  “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or has otherwise given express consent.”  Unlike a “sensitive” location, this section does not exclude those otherwise permitted to carry under 926C.  That section does exclude retired police officers.  Thus, a retired peace officer qualified under section 926C may not carry the above weapons in a “restricted” location, as it is explained above.  

The text of the State statute is here:

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/s51001

IDCWLaw Partner Howard Wien negotiates and secures ratification of new collective bargaining agreement.

Congratulations are again in order for the Railway Independent Transit Union, to its board and all its members serving as Tower Operators at the Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) railroad. 

On August 8, 2022, the Tower Operators overwhelmingly ratified a new collective bargaining agreement. This was the first CBA since the Tower Operators elected to forego representation by the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers union (“SMART”) and, instead, join the RITU.  That occurred on July 29, 2020, a time when it had been nine years since the Tower Operators’ CBA had expired. 

In reaching this agreement RITU was able to preserve and strengthen the Tower Operators’ health and pension benefits and secure immediate increases in wages of over 30% with full retroactivity. 

Howard Wien of IDC&W served as counsel to RITU during this collective bargaining.

IDCWLaw Partner Liam L. Castro, Esq. Wins Battle to Compel the City of New York to Pay Union Members for Taking Away Vehicle Privileges.

IDCWLaw has extensive experience challenging municipal decisions to take away economic benefits from union members without bargaining.  This month, August 2022, after extensive arguments from Mr. Castro, the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining ordered the City of New York to reimburse all affected employees for their mileage and tolls because the City unilaterally took away from union members their take-home vehicles without first negotiating with the union.  In UFADBA v. City of New York, the union initially challenged the City’s decision to take away the vehicles. And, about one year ago OCB held the City improperly took away those vehicles. However, when it came to the remedy, the City, in negotiations, believed the only individuals who were entitled to any compensation were those who actually had the vehicles, not anyone else who would have received the vehicles but for the City’s decision to take them away. They also argued that benefit ended when the contract expired. Mr. Castro refused to give up on those other employees, and took the matter back to OCB to argue the City was again wrong, this time as to who was entitled to compensation and for how long.  In August 2022, OCB agreed with all our arguments, and ordered the City to pay anyone who had or would have had the vehicles but for the City’s decision, that the City pay them for every mile they drove or will drive until the union and City come to an agreement otherwise, and to reimburse their tolls in the City.  We are thrilled that the City’s disregard for the rights of union-represented members were vindicated in this case.

IDCWLaw Partner Liam L. Castro, Esq. Wins Supreme Court Decision Reinstating Town Employee.

IDCWLaw has extensive experience with civil service disciplinary matters, up to and including termination.  For decades we have represented civil servants in disciplinary hearings and in appeals of disciplinary decisions before the Civil Service Commission and in State Supreme Court.  Just this month, August 2022, IDCWLaw Partner Liam L. Castro, Esq. convinced a Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice to overturn the Town of Islip’s decision to terminate an employee, in McMaster v. Town of Islip.   There, after a hearing, the Town terminated the employee for excessive absenteeism.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Castro successfully argued that the Town’s decision was excessive. He also successfully argued the Town ignored the fact that a supervisor testified other employees had similar attendance records but were not disciplined.  He explained the Town did not give the employee a fair chance at the hearing, in the end. Specifically, they initially fired the employee, after a hearing, without even providing him a copy of the disciplinary Report and Recommendation. Mr. Castro convinced the Town that was plainly improper, which resulted in the initial rescission of the termination to give the employee and Mr. Castro a chance to respond to the Report and Recommendation.  The Town even had to recuse the Department’s commissioner from the final decision because of this initial decision to terminate the employee improperly But, in the end, they fired the employee anyway. Mr. Castro argued that the Town was heavy handed and did not give the employee a fair due process hearing.  As a result, the Court ordered him reinstated and remanded the matter back to the Town for a more appropriate penalty.

IDCWLaw Partner Liam L. Castro, Esq. Wins Arbitration Award Compelling Employer to Release Union Officials From Work.

In March 2022 two union officials requested time off from their midnight shift to attend union meetings beginning during regular business hours, after 8am. The County denied that request because the union meetings did not start until after the officials’ shifts ended. We very quickly went to the Supreme Court, Ulster County and convinced a Judge to prohibit the County from denying union officials’ from using County-paid release time until the parties go to arbitration to resolve the dispute.

At arbitration, the County argued the union meetings did not start until after the officials’ shifts ended and, in any event, the contract did not require them to release union officials from their shift before the union meetings occurred. They also argued releasing the officials would impact on staffing, which is a managerial prerogative, particularly when their shifts did not occur during the Union business.

We are happy to report that, in addition to convincing a judge to prevent them, pending arbitration, from denying union release time, the arbitrator agreed with the Union and sustained the grievance. She held there was a longstanding practice consistent with the Union’s position, and rejected the County’s staffing arguments to the contrary. 

RITU Secures New Contract with PATH.

IDC&W congratulates General President Shaam Somwaru and the Board of the Railway Independent Transit Union and the union members employed by the Port Authority Trans Hudson Railroad (PATH) on the overwhelming ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement. In particular, the union is commended for successfully breaking a decade long deadlock, shoring up both the health and pension benefits and increasing salaries by over 30%.

IDC&W Partner Howard Wien served as counsel to the RITU in the negotiations with PATH.

IDCW Helps Save Pension Benefits.

Congratulations to Trustees Jeff Stark and Todd Helfrich and to all the participants of the Glens Fall Painters Pension Fund in securing financial security for the fund by obtaining Special Financial Assistance under the American Rescue Plan. This Fund is one of the first in the nation to receive assistance under this program.  The financial assistance will permit a fund that was in critical and declining status to pay its retirees full benefits for the duration of their retirements. The assistance reverses benefit cuts that were required when the fund was granted ordinary assistance from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation during 2021.

The Glens Fall Pension Fund is a perfect example of why a program such as the SFA is necessary. Due to changing industrial trends, the local union that originally sponsored the Fund was merged by its international union with another local. As a result, contributions were no longer payable to the Fund by the vast majority of area contractors in the Fund’s industry. As contributions dried up, however, the Fund was still mandated to pay benefits that participants had accrued during their years of employment.  As these payments were made, the fund spiraled closer and closer to insolvency necessitating a PBGC loan. PBGC loans are conditioned on major reductions in benefits. This meant that participants would receive only a small fraction of what they were originally entitled to under the benefit plan. All of this was occurring without any fault by the participants or the Fund’s trustees. Special Financial Assistance prevented a very real injustice to the Fund’s participants who can now trust that their retirements are secure. 

Howard Wien served as counsel to the Fund during its transactions with the PBGC.

IDCWLaw by Partner Liam L. Castro, Esq., Wins Pay Lawsuit For Military Reservists Called to Active Duty.

It is critical for us to support our military personnel.  IDCWLaw did just that.  Two Mount Vernon police officers were called to active duty to assist our nation with the government’s COVID-19 response.  While supporting our nation during the first pandemic in a century, they asked the City of Mount Vernon Police Department for military pay differential; that is the difference between their higher police officer pay and the military pay they were receiving while deployed.  They were losing income while supporting us.  But, the City of Mount Vernon said no because they were not deployed overseas, but were instead only responding to a COVID-19 national pandemic emergency.  IDCWLaw, with the assistance of the Mount Vernon PBA, sued the City and Police Department.  After the City continued to fight against these national heroes in Court, and our continued advocacy, on June 8, 2022, the Westchester County Supreme Court ordered the City to make these payments immediately.  The Court held the City was wrong.  We are thrilled for this victory for two reservists who rightly deserve our support.