H.E. No. 82-16

Synopsis:

A Hearing Examiner of the Public Employment Relations Commisison denies a motion by the Respondent Board to dismiss unfair practice charges filed by the Charging Party. The Respondent had contended that the attorney for the Charging Party did not properly certify the statements in the Unfair Practice Charge as true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The Hearing Examiner, in agreement with the Charging Party, found that the New Jersey Court Rules provided adequate precedent for the sufficiency of a certification by the attorney for the Charging Party who, by so certifying represents that he has read the charge and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it.

PERC Citation:

H.E. No. 82-16, 7 NJPER 664 (¶12297 1981)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

09.371 71.11 71.517

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- HE 82-016.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

H.E. NO. 82-16 1. H.E. NO. 82-16 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COMMERCIAL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-81-271-171 COMMERCIAL TOWNSHIP SUPPORTIVE STAFF ASSOCIATION & DARLENE COLLINGWOOD, Charging Party. Appearances: For the Commercial Township Board of Education Barbour & Costa, Esqs. (John T. Barbour, Esq.) For the Charging Party Selikoff & Cohen, Esqs. (Steven R. Cohen, Esq.) DECISION AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT = S MOTION TO DISMISS An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (hereinafter the A Commission @ ) on March 30, 1981 by the Commercial Township Supportive Staff Association and Darlene Collingwood (hereinafter the A Charging Party @ or the A Association @ ) alleging that the Commercial Township Board of Education (hereinafter the A Respondent @ or the A Board @ ) had engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, as amended, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (hereinafter the A Act @ ), in that the Respondent sent a letter dated September 28, 1980 to Darlene Collingwood, the President of the Association, the content and tenor of which intimidated Collingwood and interfered with the exercise of rights protected by the Act, namely, carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the office of President of the Charging Party, all which was alleged to be a violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.1/ It appearing that the allegations of the Unfair Practice Charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices within the meaning of the Act, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on June 17, 1981. Pursuant to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing a hearing was held on October 5, 1981 in Trenton, New Jersey, at which time the Charging Party was given an opportunity to examine witnesses and present relevant evidence. At the conclusion of the Charging Party = s case the Respondent made a Motion to Dismiss on the record. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to December 4, 1981. In the intervening period, the parties filed briefs on the Respondent = s Motion to Dismiss, the last brief being filed by the Charging Party on October 29, 1981. DISCUSSION The Respondent = s Motion to Dismiss is predicated on a very narrow ground, namely, that counsel for the Charging Party, in certifying that the statements in the Unfair Practice Charge are true, was remiss in not having the requisite basis for certifying that the statements are true to the best of his knowledge and belief and without having disclosed the source of the information and knowledge and the grounds of belief. The Respondent = s argument may be summarized as follows: (1) hearsay is incompetent in an affidavit and allegations of fact in an affidavit, if claimed to be based on information and belief, without giving the source of the information and the grounds of belief are insufficient; (2) affidavits in a judicial proceeding must contain competent factual evidence based upon personal knowledge; and (3) issuance of a Complaint and Notice of Hearing is a quasi-judicial act and is subject to the foregoing requirements as in any judicial proceeding. The Charging Party responds to the contentions of the Respondent as follows: (1) counsel for the Charging Party is not required to make an affidavit to the Unfair Practice Charge and, therefore, the rules governing affidavits are inapposite; (2) the New Jersey Court Rules 1:4-7 and 1:4-8 indicate that pleadings need not be verified unless ex parte relief is sought or a rule or statute otherwise provides; and (3) the signature of an attorney on pleadings A constitutes a certification by him that he has read the pleadings or motion; to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; that it does not contain scandalous or indecent matter; and that it is not interposed for delay... @ The Hearing Examiner, after fully considering the arguments and contentions of the parties in their respective briefs is clearly persuaded that the Respondent = s Motion to Dismiss must be denied. The Charging Party correctly cites as precedent the New Jersey Court Rules, supra, which distinguish between an affidavit and a certification by an attorney. In signing his name to the instant Unfair Practice Charge clearly counsel certified only that the statements made by him are true. There is no requirement that an affidavit must be utilized in order for there to be a valid Unfair Practice Charge for adjudication by the Commission. Further, there is no requirement whatsoever, either in the charge form or in any rule of the Commission, that the source of information or grounds of belief be disclosed. The cases cited by the Respondent are clearly inapposite to the instant Motion to Dismiss. For all the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: ORDER The Respondent = s Motion to Dismiss is denied and the Respondent will be required to present its defense(s) at the next scheduled hearing on December 4, 1981 in Trenton, New Jersey. /s/Alan R. Howe Hearing Examiner DATED: November 6, 1981 Newark, New Jersey 1/ These Subsections prohibit public employers, their agents or representatives from: A (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act. (3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act. @ ***** End of HE 82-16 *****