TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Prisoners' Labor Union v. Helsby

In the Matter of the Prisoners' Labor Union at Bedford Hills (Women's Division) v. Robert D. Helsby, Constituting the Members of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board, and New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent-Intervenor

Prisoners' Labor Union v. Helsby, 44 A.D.2d 707 (1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 22, 1974
Citations
44 A.D.2d 707354 N.Y.S.2d 6941974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 519987 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2159

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to review two determinations of the respondent Public Employment Relations Board, one as to petitioner the Prisoners’ Labor Union at Green Haven, dated May 24, 1973, and the other as to the two other petitioners, i.e., the Prisoners’ Labor Union at Wallkill and the Prisoners’ Labor Union at Bedford Hills, Women’s Division, dated July 25, 1973, which affirmed, respectively, two decisions of the director of the respondent board, made on a stipulation of facts, dismissing petitioners’ applications for certification of petitioners as exclusive negotiating representatives of the inmates of their respective institutions as “public employees” within the meaning of subdivision 7 of section 201 of the Civil Service Law (the Taylor Act). Proceeding dismissed on the merits and determinations confirmed, on the law, without costs. If there be merit in petitioners’ claims of a right to organize and bargain collectively, it is for the Legislature so to determine. It is not the function of the courts to institute far-reaching reforms under the guise of constitutional interpretation. *708 Any such attempt at piecemeal judicial legislation can create more problems than it would solve. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 11976: 11992: 11994: 119752026peak 1975 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list