Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CSEA says city is stalling on signed contract; union files labor charges after unreturned requests
Summary
CSEA representatives told the Troy law committee the city has not delivered a printed integrated contract despite an MOA in effect, recounting repeated unanswered requests since November 2025 and announcing improper-practice filings; administration said the MOA is in effect and offered to review the integrated contract if charges are held in abeyance.
Jordan Lee, regional labor relations specialist for the Civil Service Employees Association, told the Troy law committee the core problem is that CSEA members lack a printed, integrated contract to reference even though a memorandum of agreement (MOA) is in effect.
Lee walked committee members through a chronology of outreach: CSEA provided a draft for comment in November 2025, received limited technical edits, and says the city failed to engage on subsequent requests for meetings or updates. Lee said a Taylor Law information request issued February 23, 2026 set a March 9 deadline; when the corporation counsel responded only on March 6 and then declined to commit to the timetable, CSEA filed improper-practice charges alleging the employer ignored its information requests.
"The city kind of has a habit of not doing things unless it feels compelled to do it," Lee said, arguing the city could have reviewed and highlighted problems in a few hours rather than insisting on a what counsel called a "laborious" read-aloud review.
Deputy Mayor speakers and administration representatives told the committee the MOA approved by the council Oct. 3, 2025 is in effect and that members are receiving the negotiated pay and benefits. The administration said it is willing to sit down and work through an integrated printed contract, but that sitting down while an improper-practice charge is pending is legally fraught; corporation counsel suggested the city would prefer an agreement to hold a charge in abeyance in exchange for dismissing it on finalization.
Committee members pressed both sides on process and past practice. Union leaders said they have filed three improper-practice charges tied to unreturned information requests and other bargaining problems; administration officials described prior integration sessions as a customary step that prevents errors in the combined document.
The committee did not adopt a directive or a vote about the contract; members encouraged continued negotiation and a date-setting conversation. The dispute remains unresolved: CSEA has filed charges to the Public Employment Relations Board while the city says it is willing to convene bargaining under the procedural conditions it described.
What happens next: the improper-practice charges proceed through PERB procedures unless the union agrees to put them on hold; the city reiterated readiness to meet if charges can be suspended or dismissed after finalization of an integrated contract.
