July 22, 2014

NLRB Not Entitled to Injunction Directing NYC Property Management Company to Bargain with Incumbent Union

The New York City Displaced Building Service Worker Protection Act, NYC Administrative Code Section 22-505 (DBSWA), requires that any buyer, transferee or successor employer of most New York City commercial and residential properties offer the incumbent employees jobs after the change in ownership or employer for as many jobs as the new employer will have at the property, and to keep those employees in employ for at least 90 days unless it has cause for discharge during that “probationary” period.

This law, although applicable in both union and nonunion properties, was strongly supported during the enactment process culminating in 2002, by Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union (“the Union”), which represents a large number of employees at such properties in New York City. The law generally was considered to have the effect of keeping the Union in place when a building changed ownership or control or contractor providing building services, because under federal labor law’s so-called “successorship” doctrine, if a majority of the workforce of a successor employer is composed of employees of the predecessor, there is a legal presumption that those employees still wish to be represented by that union.

However, in a recent decision, Paulsen v. GVS Properties, LLC, 12 CV 04845 (BMC)(S.D.N.Y. November 13, 2012), a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of New York denied a request for injunctive relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board seeking to compel a buyer to recognize the incumbent union (not Local 32BJ), holding that, because hiring pursuant to the DBSWA is not “voluntary” but mandatory, and that the federal labor law “successorship” doctrine is based on “voluntary” hiring of a majority by the successor, the fact that a buyer hired the seller’s contractor’s employees did not require the buyer to recognize and bargain with the union until the buyer made a decision after the 90 day “probationary” period. Because the buyer’s workforce of eight employees included only four of the seller’s contractor’s employees, there was no majority and the judge denied the National Labor Relations Board’s request for a preliminary injunction.

This decision could, if upheld on appeal, change the manner in which buyers and/or new contractors not in contractual relations with the incumbent union make labor and employment decisions after closing or change in contractors. While employers cannot refuse to hire persons because of their union status, or to avoid union obligations, the presumptive continuance of representation of the predecessor’s union will no longer be automatic as had been presumed.

©2014 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Jerrold F. Goldberg, Employment Attorney, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm

Jerrold F. Goldberg has been practicing in virtually all aspects of labor and employment law since 1979, including the traditional labor/union-management area, employment discrimination, executive employment, severance agreements and wage and hour laws.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.