The Employee Free Choice Petition for Dutchess County sign now

Do you believe that workers here in Dutchess County should have the same rights as those in New Jersey with the "card-check" legislation sensibly passed there in 2005-- the right to join a union if we wish without fear of intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or being fired-- if majorities of us in our workplaces sign cards in favor of union representation?

If you do, sign on to this petition, pass it along to all you know, and contact the Dutchess County Legislature at 486-2100 and our state legislature at (877) 255-9417 (as this will most likely require home rule request legislation to be passed in Albany, approved by the Governor, Assembly, and Senate; see proposal for Dutchess County submitted to our County Legislature's offices June 16th).

Note as well-- there's a strong bipartisan coalition for this nationally, for the Employee Free Choice Act nationally (H.R. 800/S. 1041): Dem Rep.'s Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hall, and Maurice Hinchey (and hundreds more), along with Sen.'s Clinton and Schumer, and G.O.P. Rep.'s Peter King, John McHugh, and Vito Fossella of NY, along with G.O.P. Rep.'s Chris Shays of CT and Frank Lobiondo and Chris Smith of New Jersey.

According to the AFL-CIO, "our working families are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing; one of the best opportunities workers have to get ahead economically is by uniting on the job to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits; recent research has found that literally sixty million workers in the United States would join a union if they could; this concept is supported by over two-thirds of Americans."

"According to Cornell University, in a study of hundreds of organizing campaigns across the country, ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; eighty percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and seventy-eight percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee."

"According to the same Cornell University study, seventy-five percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law. Half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union, and in twenty-five percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union."

"CEOs get contracts that protect their wages and benefits, but many deny their employees the same opportunity; although U.S. and international laws are supposed to protect workers' freedom to belong to unions, employers routinely harass, intimidate, coerce and even fire workers struggling to gain a union so they can bargain for better lives. Employees are on an uneven playing field from the first moment they begin exploring whether they want to form a union, and the will of the majority often is crushed by brutal management tactics."

Ball's in your court now, folks.

Joel Tyner
Dutchess County Legislature Environmental Committee Chair
County Legislator, Clinton/Rhinebeck
324 Browns Pond Road
Staatsburg, NY 12580
[email protected]
(845) 876-2488

p.s. Note-- it may be necessary, in order to get this legislation passed here in county/state, for it to exclude some small businesses and/or nonprofit agencies at first-- again, this up to you all!

[recall our previous effort/16-mile walk: http://www.petitiononline.com/yourback;
also see http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2005/07/22/new_jersey_passes_card_check_l;
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/A2000/1820_R2.HTM;
http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2642;
http://www.labor.state.ny.us/erb/index.htm;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00800:;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01041:]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[text here below of resolution submitted by yours truly June 16th]

A LOCAL LAW REQUIRING THAT EMPLOYERS IN DUTCHESS COUNTY RECOGNIZE UNIONS IF MAJORITIES OF WORKERS SIGN AUTHORIZATION CARDS; CONCERNING RECOGNITION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

WHEREAS, Dutchess County's working families are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing; one of the best opportunities Dutchess County's workers have to get ahead economically is by uniting on the job to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits; recent research has found that literally sixty million workers in the United States would join a union if they could; many of them are here in Dutchess County; this concept is supported by over two-thirds of Americans, and

WHEREAS, according to Cornell University, in a study of hundreds of organizing campaigns across the country, ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; eighty percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and seventy-eight percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee, and

WHEREAS, according to the same Cornell University study, seventy-five percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns, often based on mass psychology and distorting the law; half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union, and in twenty-five percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union, and

WHEREAS, CEOs get contracts that protect their wages and benefits, but many deny their employees the same opportunity; although U.S. and international laws are supposed to protect workers' freedom to belong to unions, employers routinely harass, intimidate, coerce and even fire workers struggling to gain a union so they can bargain for better lives; employees are on an uneven playing field from the first moment they begin exploring whether they want to form a union, and the will of the majority often is crushed by brutal management tactics, and therefore be it

RESOLVED, that this Legislature of the County of Dutchess adopt Local Law No. of 2008, a Card Check Law for Dutchess County to ensure that workers in Dutchess County can join together in unions at their workplaces without fear of harassment, retaliation, or being fired, if majorities of workers at those companies sign cards in favor of union representation, which has been submitted this day for consideration by said Legislature, and be it further

RESOLVED, that a copy of this legislation be sent to the New York State Department of Labor, New York State Employment Relations Board, Governor David Paterson, state Senator Vincent Leibell, state Senator Stephen Saland, and Assemblymembers Greg Ball, Kevin Cahill, Thomas Kirwan, Joel Miller, and Marcus Molinaro.

BE IT ENACTED by the County Legislature of the County of Dutchess as follows:

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

A. The Dutchess County Legislature, in order to properly protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the County of Dutchess, and in accordance with the authority granted by the New York State Legislature, finds that Dutchess County's working families are struggling to make ends meet, and our middle class is disappearing; one of the best opportunities Dutchess County's workers have to get ahead economically is by uniting on the job to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits; recent research has found that literally sixty million American workers would join a union if they could; many of them are here in Dutchess County.

B. According to Cornell University, in a study of hundreds of organizing campaigns across the country, ninety-two percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, force employees to attend closed-door meetings to hear anti-union propaganda; eighty percent require supervisors to attend training sessions on attacking unions; and seventy-eight percent require that supervisors deliver anti-union messages to workers they oversee.

C. According to the same Cornell University study, seventy-five percent of private-sector employers, when faced with employees who want to join together in a union, hire outside consultants to run anti-union campaigns often based on mass psychology and distorting the law; half of employers threaten to shut down partially or totally if employees join together in a union, and in twenty-five percent of organizing campaigns, private-sector employers illegally fire workers because they want to form a union.

SECTION 2. EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES, UNIONS, AUTHORIZATION CARDS

A. In the case of a private employer in Dutchess County not regulated by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s.151 et seq.), the New York State Employment Relations Board shall designate a representative for a unit of employees in Dutchess County of the private employer for the purposes of collective bargaining when:

(1) In any case in which the board determines that only one employee organization is seeking to be the majority representative, that organization demonstrates that a majority of employees in the unit have shown their preference to have that organization be their representative by signing authorization cards indicating that preference, those cards printed in a language understood by those employees; or

(2) The employees in the unit have selected a representative by an election that conforms with the procedures outlined in section 159 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s.159).

SECTION 3. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES.

A. Any employer who refuses to provide information requested by the New York State Employment Relations Board or otherwise acts to prevent the board from carrying out its responsibilities shall have violated this law and shall be liable to a fine of not more than $1,000 in the name of the board and to be used by the board for costs of implementing this subsection. In addition, an employee organization seeking to represent the employees of the employer may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain an injunction to restrain any continuation of the violation, to reimburse the employee organization or any affected employee for any damages caused by the violation plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees of the action.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.

A. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the words, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

A. This local law shall take effect on January 1, 2009 upon full compliance with all the requisite statutes and laws applicable to its adoption and promulgation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2005/07/22/new_jersey_passes_card_check_l ...

"New Jersey Passes Card Check Legislation"
By Nathan Newman - July 22, 2005

With the signature of acting Governor Codey, New Jersey has made "card check" recognition -- the right of workers to form a union when 50\% of them sign cards requesting it -- the law of the land in that state.

At least for workers not covered by federal labor law.

But it's both a good symbolic message and will help a number of workers who lack such rights (text below from subscription-only Daily Labor Report):

The measure applies only to racetrack owners, breeders, and trainers; real estate brokers; certain small businesses not engaged in interstate commerce; Native American tribes; agricultural laborers; domestic servants; independent contractors; certain public employees; supervisors; and employees subject to the Railway Labor Act, according to the New Jersey State AFL-CIO.

Most of the state's hospitals ultimately won an exemption from the provisions of the bill under a Senate floor amendment that excluded private, federal tax-exempt non-profit organizations from the requirement to recognize a union as a collective bargaining representative based on signed authorization cards from a majority of employees.

The measure authorizes the New Jersey State Board of Mediation to determine whether an employee unit is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining. Employers are liable under the bill for fines of up to $ 1,000 and court costs if they refuse to provide information to the Board of Mediation or seek to prevent the board from carrying out its responsibilities.

Probably the largest effect of the bill will be on state employees, who now be able to use card check in most representation campaigns-- although granting organizing rights to agricultural workers corrects one of the most glaring racist injustices of our national labor law.

But this legislation highlights that there are many ways for progressives to improve the conditions for union organizing through state and local legislation. These happen mostly in incremental ways, but many, many incremental changes can help workers tremendously.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From the National Workrights Institute...

[see http://www.workrights.org/issue_organize/ro_rto_nlra.html ]

REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS UNDER THE NLRA: CAN THE SYSTEM BE FIXED?

It has been well known for years that the union representation election process under the National Labor Relations Act is seriously flawed and fails to reflect the desires of a majority of workers. Many scholars and activists have made proposals for reforming the NLRA election system. Others believe that the system is inherently unworkable and cannot be fixed. These individuals believe that the solution is to eliminate elections and substitute the card check system.

The first step in resolving this crucial issue is recognizing that it cannot be answered in the abstract. The controlling principle is that the decision regarding whether or not a group of workers is represented by a union is that the decision should represent the will of the majority. Whether to hold elections or use card check is not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic issue. The method used to make this decision (card check or election) should be the method which best implements the wishes of the workers.

The most serious problem with the current election system is that one side has a near monopoly of access to the voters (workers). The employer can hold unlimited meetings to put forth its arguments against the union. The union is not allowed to speak at these meetings. Neither are workers who support the union. Nor are workers allowed to stay away. Under the Act, employers are permitted to make attending these anti-union meetings a condition of employment. The union, in contrast, is not even allowed into the facility to talk to the workers.

Clearly, this is unfair. The results of a political election would never be recognized as legitimate under these circumstances. If an election based system is to be maintained, the problem of unequal access must be solved.

The captive audience problem can be solved. The NLRA could be amended to require that the union be given equal time, either at the same meeting at which the employer makes its presentation, or at a separate meeting. The rules could be changed so that the conditions of attendance (voluntary or mandatory) were the same for both. Employers would vigorously oppose such a change in the law, and it would be difficult to accomplish politically, but there is no principled reason why this change cannot be made.

This alone, however, does not solve the equal access problem. Employers do not confine their communication to formal meetings. During an organizing campaign, management communicates its message constantly. Even the most casual conversation between management and workers frequently contains a statement or question regarding the upcoming election. For the election process to be fair, the union would have to be given the opportunity for the same type of communication. This would mean giving representatives of the union unrestricted and unsupervised access to the workplace.

Such a system, however, is completely unworkable. Having outsiders wandering around the facility talking to anyone they want to whenever they want would completely disrupt production. It could even be a safety hazard. Imagine outsiders, who do not know the facility, walking around a steel mill or refinery without supervision.

This represents a fatal defect in the election model. The election is not fair unless both sides have comparable access to the voters. But giving the union such access is impossible.

The other critical problem with elections is employer coercion. Literally thousands of workers are fired every year for trying to organize. This not only denies the rights of these workers, but intimidates other workers as well. Firing a handful of workers is often enough to stop an organizing campaign in its tracks. A solution to this problem must be found if the election model is to be retained.

On paper, the problem can be solved. Any behavior which is motivated by a rational expectation of gain can be deterred if the penalty is sufficiently severe and the probability of being caught is high enough. In practice, however, it may be insoluble. The economic gains to an employer by keeping its workforce non-union are substantial. Unionized workers make at least 20\% more than non-union workers in comparable jobs. A large employer can save literally millions of dollars by violating the NLRA. In addition, employers have deep personal resistance to sharing power with workers. The penalty required to overcome the combined resistance of these two factors would be huge, possibly large enough to threaten the financial health of the company (and the continued existence of the workers jobs). Criminal penalties against offending managers would have adequate deterrent effect, but it is questionable at best that our country is prepared to take this step.

The severity of both these problems would be greatly reduced under card check. Under card check, the decision-making period would no longer be approximately seven weeks. Instead, it would be months, or even years. With essentially unlimited time to get its message across, the unions inferior access to the workers would be far less of a problem.

An unlimited decision making period would also diminish the impact of coercion. The time and effort required of management to keep the pressure on during an organizing drive is substantial. As a practical matter, an employer simply cannot keep holding frequent captive audience meetings forever, nor can it turn every discussion with a worker into an anti-union sales pitch forever. Over time, the focus must return to producing and selling the product.

It is often claimed that card check is a one sided process in which the union sells workers on organizing while the employer, unaware of the campaign, is silent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the card check system prevents an employer from explaining its views about unions to workers as part of its regular employee communications program. Sophisticated employers do this already.

Moreover, an employer will still be able to amplify their message during an organizing campaign under card check. In virtually every company, there are some employees who are opposed to joining a union. When these employees become aware that a union is collecting cards, they will tell management. This will allow management to step up their communications during critical periods.

Even under card check, the employer continues to have the upper hand. It has easy access to the workers daily, while the union has to struggle to locate workers away from the facility. Even with a list of the workers home addresses (which the employer is required to provide under the Excelsior decision), communicating with workers away from the company is difficult and inefficient.

The employer also continues to have far more ability to coerce those it has not persuaded. In the absence of a union, workers are employees at will. They can be fired for any reason, fair or unfair, or for no reason at all. The employer also controls promotions, pay raises, vacation scheduling and many other decisions that seriously affect a worker and his or her family. Even if gross retaliation (such as firing the leaders of an organizing effort) can be effectively prevented, an employer retains the ability to do great harm to a worker whom it views as a negative influence. This power vastly surpasses any ability employees favoring the union may have to arm twist a few voters in a closely divided company.

Overall, card check is a better method to determine whether workers will be represented by a union. The employer has unfair advantages under the election model that cannot be eliminated. Under card check, however, the effect of these advantages is greatly reduced so that the ultimate decision more often reflects the desire of the workers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Robert Jameson ([email protected]) of the New Jersey State Legislature...

[text here below of card-check legislation passed there in 2005]

CHAPTER 161

An Act concerning recognition of representatives for certain employees and amending P.L.1968, c.303.

Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1.Section 5 of P.L.1968, c.303 (C.34:13A-5.1) is amended to read as follows:

C.34:13A-5.1 Establishment of division of public employment relations and division of private employment dispute settlement.

5.There is hereby established a Division of Public Employment Relations and a Division of Private Employment Dispute Settlement.

(a)The Division of Public Employment Relations shall be concerned exclusively with matters of public employment related to determining negotiating units, elections, certifications and settlement of public employee representative and public employer disputes and grievance procedures. For the purpose of complying with the provisions of Article V, Section IV, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the Division of Public Employment Relations is hereby allocated within the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and located in the city of Trenton, but notwithstanding said allocation, the office shall be independent of any supervision or control by the department or by any board or officer thereof.

(b) The Division of Private Employment Dispute Settlement shall assist the New Jersey State Board of Mediation in the resolution of disputes in private employment. The New Jersey State Board of Mediation, its objectives and the powers and duties granted by this act and the act of which this act is amendatory and supplementary shall be concerned exclusively with matters of private employment and the office shall continue to be located in the city of Newark.

(c)In the case of a private employer not regulated by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s.151 et seq.), the New Jersey State Board of Mediation shall designate a representative for a unit of employees of the private employer for the purposes of collective bargaining when:

(1)In any case in which the board determines that only one employee organization is seeking to be the majority representative, that organization demonstrates that a majority of employees in the unit have shown their preference to have that organization be their representative by signing authorization cards indicating that preference; or

(2)The employees in the unit have selected a representative by an election that conforms with the procedures outlined in section 159 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s.159).

For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection, an authorization card indicating preference shall not be valid unless it is printed in a language understood by the employee who signs it.

Any employer who refuses to provide information requested by the New Jersey State Board of Mediation or otherwise acts to prevent the board from carrying out its responsibilities pursuant to this subsection (c) shall have violated this subsection and shall be liable to a fine of not more than $1,000, to be recovered under the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.)in the name of the board and to be used by the board for costs of implementing this subsection. In addition, an employee organization seeking to represent the employees of the employer may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain an injunction to restrain any continuation of the violation, to reimburse the employee organization or any affected employee for any damages caused by the violation plus reasonable costs and attorney's fees of the action.

The provisions of this subsection (c) shall not apply to religious or parochial schools or their employees or to any private nonprofit organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. s. 501).

(d)In the case of a private employer regulated by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s. 151 et seq.), the New Jersey State Board of Mediation shall, based on the mutual agreement of the private employer and an organization seeking to represent employees of the employer, designate a representative for a unit of employees of the private employer for the purposes of collective bargaining when:

(1)In any case in which the board determines that only one employee organization is seeking to be the majority representative, that organization demonstrates, in a manner mutually agreed upon by the representative and the employer, that a majority of employees in the unit have shown their preference to have that organization be their representative by signing authorization cards indicating that preference; or

(2)the employees in the unit have selected the representative by an election that conforms with the procedures outlined in section 159 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. s.159).

(e)For the purposes of subsections (c) and (d) of this section, "employee unit" means an appropriate group of employees for the purposes of collective bargaining as determined, if necessary, by the New Jersey State Board of Mediation.

2.Section 7 of P.L.1968, c.303 (C.34:13A-5.3) is amended to read as follows:

C.34:13A-5.3 Employee organizations; right to form or join; collective negotiations; grievance procedures.

7.Except as hereinafter provided, public employees shall have, and shall be protected in the exercise of, the right, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join and assist any employee organization or to refrain from any such activity; provided, however, that this right shall not extend to elected officials, members of boards and commissions, managerial executives, or confidential employees, except in a school district the term managerial executive shall mean the superintendent of schools or his equivalent, nor, except where established practice, prior agreement or special circumstances dictate the contrary, shall any supervisor having the power to hire, discharge, discipline, or to effectively recommend the same, have the right to be represented in collective negotiations by an employee organization that admits nonsupervisory personnel to membership, and the fact that any organization has such supervisory employees as members shall not deny the right of that organization to represent the appropriate unit in collective negotiations; and provided further, that, except where established practice, prior agreement, or special circumstances dictate the contrary, no policeman shall have the right to join an employee organization that admits employees other than policemen to membership. The negotiating unit shall be defined with due regard for the community of interest among the employees concerned, but the commission shall not intervene in matters of recognition and unit definition except in the event of a dispute.

Representatives designated or selected by public employees for the purposes of collective negotiation by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, by the majority of the employees voting in an election conducted by the commission as authorized by this act or, at the option of the representative in a case in which the commission finds that only one representative is seeking to be the majority representative, by a majority of the employees in the unit signing authorization cards indicating their preference for that representative, shall be the exclusive representatives for collective negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in such unit. An authorization card indicating preference shall not be valid unless it is printed in a language understood by the employee who signs it.Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any official from meeting with an employee organization for the purpose of hearing the views and requests of its members in such unit so long as (a) the majority representative is informed of the meeting; (b) any changes or modifications in terms and conditions of employment are made only through negotiation with the majority representative; and (c) a minority organization shall not present or process grievances. Nothing herein shall be construed to deny to any individual employee his rights under Civil Service laws or regulations. When no majority representative has been selected as the bargaining agent for the unit of which an individual employee is a part, he may present his own grievance either personally or through an appropriate representative or an organization of which he is a member and have such grievance adjusted.

A majority representative of public employees in an appropriate unit shall be entitled to act for and to negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interest of all such employees without discrimination and without regard to employee organization membership. Proposed new rules or modifications of existing rules governing working conditions shall be negotiated with the majority representative before they are established. In addition, the majority representative and designated representatives of the public employer shall meet at reasonable times and negotiate in good faith with respect to grievances, disciplinary disputes, and other terms and conditions of employment. Nothing herein shall be construed as permitting negotiation of the standards or criteria for employee performance.

When an agreement is reached on the terms and conditions of employment, it shall be embodied in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the public employer and the majority representative.

Public employers shall negotiate written policies setting forth grievance and disciplinary review procedures by means of which their employees or representatives of employees may appeal the interpretation, application or violation of policies, agreements, and administrative decisions, including disciplinary determinations, affecting them, provided that such grievance and disciplinary review procedures shall be included in any agreement entered into between the public employer and the representative organization. Such grievance and disciplinary review procedures may provide for binding arbitration as a means for resolving disputes. Except as otherwise provided herein, the procedures agreed to by the parties may not replace or be inconsistent with any alternate statutory appeal procedure nor may they provide for binding arbitration of disputes involving the discipline of employees with statutory protection under tenure or civil service laws, except that such procedures may provide for binding arbitration of disputes involving the minor discipline of any public employees protected under the provisions of section 7 of P.L.1968, c.303 (C.34:13A-5.3), other than public employees subject to discipline pursuant to R.S.53:1-10. Grievance and disciplinary review procedures established by agreement between the public employer and the representative organization shall be utilized for any dispute covered by the terms of such agreement. For the purposes of this section, minor discipline shall mean a suspension or fine of less than five days unless the employee has been suspended or fined an aggregate of 15 or more days or received more than three suspensions or fines of five days or less in one calendar year.

Where the State of New Jersey and the majority representative have agreed to a disciplinary review procedure that provides for binding arbitration of disputes involving the major discipline of any public employee protected under the provisions of this section, other than public employees subject to discipline pursuant to R.S.53:1-10, the grievance and disciplinary review procedures established by agreement between the State of New Jersey and the majority representative shall be utilized for any dispute covered by the terms of such agreement. For the purposes of this section, major discipline shall mean a removal, disciplinary demotion, suspension or fine of more than five days, or less where the aggregate number of days suspended or fined in any one calendar year is 15 or more days or unless the employee received more than three suspensions or fines of five days or less in one calendar year.

3.This act shall take effect immediately.

Approved July 19, 2005.



Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Shoutbox

Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook
OR

If you already have an account please sign in

Comment

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal
0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet

Information

Ebony ByrdBy:
City LifeIn:
Petition target:
Dutchess County residents

Tags

No tags

Share

Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title

Widgets