Ler

LAW OFFICES

GUAZZO, PERELSON. RUSHFIELD & GUAZZO
207 EAST 31ST STREET NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10016

(212) 696-9500

CAESAR C. GUAZZO* oS 1700 ROUTE 3
STEPHEN A. PERELSON* CLIFTON. NEW JERSEY 07013

MARK C. RUSHFIELDt+ (201) 773-7600

DELIA M. GUAZZO*

January 13, 1987

*ADMITTED NEW YORK ONLY
tADMITTED NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

EXPRESS MAIL

John M. Crotty, Esq.

New York State Public Employment
Relations Board

50 Wolf Road

Albany, New York 12205-2670

Re: City University of New York
Case No C-3174

Dear Mr. Crotty:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Professional Staff Congress/CUNY
("PSC") and hereby indicate the PSC's objection to the Petition filed on or about
December 2, 1986 with PERB. The basis of our objection is that the petitioner alleges
that it is a Petition for certification of a negotiating representative (employee
organization) when in fact the purpose of the Petition is one of decertification.

The Rules and Regulations of the Public Employment Relations Board,
Section 201.5 provides:

(b) Petitions for decertification shall contain the
following:

1. The name, affiliation, if any and address of
petitioner.

2. The name or names of the employee organi-
zation(s) which have been certified or currently
recognized by the public employer and which claim
to represent the eimployees in the unit involved, the
expiration date of any contract covering such em-
ployees, and the date of the commencement of the
fiscal year of the employer.

3. Whether such representation is exclusive.

4. The name and address of the public employ-
er involved.

5. Whether the employee _ organization(s)
which have been certified or currently recognized
by the public employer have engaged in a strike or


3 4.
-

-2-

GUAZZO. PERELSON. RUSHFIELD 8 GUAZZO

have caused instigated, encouraged, or condoned a
strike against any government.

6. The grounds upon which decertification or
revocation of recognition is sought.

7. A description of the unit, including the
number of employees.

8. If an employee organization, whether the
showing of interest requirement, as set forth in
sections 201.3 and 201.4 of these Rules is met.

9. A statement that the matter is not subject
to section 206.1 or 212 of the Act (except the
Petition filed under Section 201.3(e)).

10. A clear and concise statement of any other
relevant facts.

Even a cursory examination of the Petition filed in this manner indicates
that it is defective in that it omits, among other things, any statement of the grounds
upon which decertification or revocation of recognition is sought. It is the position of
the PSC that the inclusion of this material in the Petition is mandatory and the failure
of petitioner to include such allegations requires the dismissal of the Petition. In
addition, the PSC as the certified exclusive bargaining representative of the job titles
sought by petitioner herein is entitled to know and to be placed on notice as a matter
of due process of the grounds with reasonable specificity upon which decertification or
revocation of recognition is sought by petitioner.

PSC notes that in a letter dated December 16, 1986 the Employer also
asserted that the Petition has been improperly filed and should be dismissed.

The PSC would also like to bring to your attention that the answer supplied
by petitioner to question 6a. of the Petition (the number of employees alleged to be in
unit) is either gross error on the part of petitioner or a material misstatement of fact
in that petitioner was in possession of several employee lists supplied by the Employer
prior to the filing of the Petition showing approximately 5,850 employees in the titles
named in the Petition.

If you have any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.

Very truly yours,

Stephen Perelson
SP:sm

ee: Mr. Arnold Cantor
Jane Denkensohn, Esq.
Jerome Tauber, Esq.