New York Court of Appeals, 1969

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Helsby

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 16, 1969 · Bkeitel, Fuld, Jasen, Scileppi

24 N.Y.2d 993; 250 N.E.2d 230; 302 N.Y.S.2d 822; 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1266; 71 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2319

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

City of Wood Dale v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)
American Ass'n of University Professors v. Board of Regents (Neb. 1977)
Matter of Wagschal v. Szegedin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Gaul v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York Supreme Court 2009)
American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
State v. Public Employment Relations Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Queens Borough Public Library v. Public Employment Relations Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Nicholson v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct (New York Supreme Court 1979)
Lincoln County Memorial Hospital v. Missouri State Board of Mediation (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Reese v. Lombard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
Tobin v. Ford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Concurring Opinion

Scileppi, J. (concurring).

Although I believe that the controversy herein should be resolved without undue delay, I am not disposed to restrain petitioners from pursuing such remedies as may be legally available to them.

Concurring Opinion

Bkeitel and Jasen, JJ. (concurring).

In concurring for affirmance we agree, however, with the Chief Judge that the *996elections should proceed forthwith in accordance with the hoard’s determination defining the appropriate units.

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Judge Fuld (dissenting).

I would reverse the order appealed from and reinstate the judgment of Special Term.

The Public Employment Relations Board’s definition of the appropriate employer-employee negotiating units — pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 207 of the Civil Service Law — in the course of a proceeding to resolve disputes concerning representation status still pending, is neither an order within the meaning of section 210 (subd. 4) of that statute nor a final determination within the sense of CPLR 7801. In my judgment, review may be had only of the board’s ultimate resolution of those disputes by its certification or recognition of the appropriate employee organizations. Actually, to sanction the present attack on the board’s intermediate decision — but the first step of an investigative process which will, hopefully, lead to settling the representation status in issue — serves no purpose except to invite piecemeal judicial review and intolerable delay. In that connection, I would only add that the elections to ascertain the organizations which the employees choose to be their representatives should proceed forthwith, without stay or restraint, in accordance with the board’s determination defining the appropriate units.

Order affirmed, etc.

Motion to vacate the statutory stay dismissed as academic (see CPLR 5519).

Opinion of the Court

All concur, Judge Scileppi in a memorandum and Judges Bkeitel and Jasen in a memorandum, except Chief Judge Fuld who dissents and votes to reverse and to reinstate the judgment of Special Term in an opinion; Judge Keating taking no part.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.