NYPD traffic enforcement agents suing over inability to resign from union

(The Center Square) – Two traffic enforcement agents with the New York City Police Department filed a federal lawsuit earlier this week claiming the union representing the workers refuses to recognize their resignations and the city continues to deduct union fees from their paychecks.

The case filed in the U.S. District Court for New York’s Southern District, though, is more than just about getting back union dues. Lawyers for the Fairness Center, which is representing Edward Mendez and Hortencia Garcia, also say it’s about having the ability to decide who represents them in collective bargaining.

“Our clients don’t want to be forced to accept the union as their exclusive representative, and instead want to have the freedom to choose who represents and speaks for them when it comes to collective bargaining with the city,” Danielle Susanj, senior litigation counsel for the Fairness Center, told The Center Square.

Mendez, who has worked for the NYPD for more than 33 years, sent a letter of resignation to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 and Local 983 (DC 37) last July. However, it was not until October that he learned the union rejected his letter because it “did not like the way” he resigned.

He was told by a union officer to write another letter, have it notarized and then personally deliver it to him.

Garcia began working for the NYPD about 20 years ago. In November, she submitted her letter of resignation to DC 37 and requested that the city no longer deduct union dues from her check. Less than two weeks later, the city informed her that she would need “valid written authorization” from DC 37 to stop removing dues.

Both Mendez and Garcia have asked the union and the city for information showing why their resignations have not been accepted. So far, neither has received a copy of the membership agreement they allegedly signed.

Besides having their resignations formally recognized and receiving a refund on dues paid since that time, the plaintiffs also seek the court to keep DC 37 from providing less representation in comparison to dues-paying members.

“Unions have a duty to fairly represent all the employees in the bargaining unit, but New York law allows unions to treat nonmembers differently in representational matters,” Susanj said. “That limitation seems to narrow a union’s duty to nonmembers in a way that could end up penalizing those who choose not to be members of a union, even though they have the constitutional right to make that choice.”

A message to DC 37 seeking comment was not returned.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square