*233The agency policy of not allowing an employee to consult with a union representative after a question is posed and before an answer must be given, at an interrogation conducted pursuant to Mayoral Executive Order No. 16, was reasonably designed to promote truthful responses by discouraging coaching. This did not deprive the employee of his right to union representation under Civil Service Law § 75 (2) or NLRB v J. Weingarten, Inc. (420 US 251 [1975]). While plaintiff relies on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd. (826 A2d 932 [Pa 2003]), which holds the opposite, that case is not binding on this court and we reject its reasoning. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31103(U).]
Seabrook v. City of New York
Related Cases
- Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York Inc. v. City of New York
- Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board
- Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York
- Social Service Employees Union, Local 371 ex rel. Norris v. New York City of Collective Bargaining
- Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. City of New York