H.E. No. 82-45

Synopsis:

A Hearing Examiner denies a Motion for Reconsideration of dismissal of charges of unfair practices for want of prosecution. The Motion for Reconsideration offered no persuasive reasons why the Charging Party could not have communicatd with the Hearing Examiner between mid-January 1982 and March 11, 1982, the date of issuance of H.E. No. 82-42, which recommended dismissal for want of prosecution.

PERC Citation:

H.E. No. 82-45, 8 NJPER 271 (¶13117 1982)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

71.227 71.520 71.9

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- HE 82-045.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

H.E. NO. 82-45 1. H.E. NO. 82-45 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of OCEAN COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY & OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS UNION, Respondents, -and- Docket No. CO-81-212-106 AMALGAMATED LOCAL UNION 355, Charging Party. Appearances: For the Ocean County Utilities Authority Aron, Till and Salsberg, Esqs. (David A. Wallace, Esq.) For the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union Mr. Thomas V. Dooley For Amalgamated Local Union 355 Schneider, Cohen, Solomon & DiMarzio, Esqs. (J. Sheldon Cohen, Esq.) HEARING EXAMINER = S DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On March 11, 1982, the Hearing Examiner issued H.E. No. 82- 42, which recommended that the Public Employment Relations Commission (hereinafter the A Commission @ ) dismiss charges of unfair practices, filed by the Charging Party, for want of prosecution. The charges against each Respondent were summarized and set forth together with a history of the proceedings since the issuance of the Complaint and Notice of Hearing on February 23, 1981. This history will not be repeated herein. Suffice it to say that on January 6, 1982 counsel for the Charging Party telephoned the Hearing Examiner to advise that the matter was settled but had yet to be reduced to writing and that he would call again in two weeks. No telephone call was ever received again from counsel for the Charging Party until March 18, 1982, three days after receipt of a copy of H.E. No. 82-42, supra. In the intervening period the Hearing Examiner had telephoned counsel for the Charging Party on four separate occasions between February 23 and March 2, 1982 without any response. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner personally requested counsel for the Charging Party, who was nearby, to meet with him in his office to discuss the status of the matter, but there was no response. This request was made on March 1, 1982. Counsel for the Charging Party filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner on March 25, 1982. A copy was also addressed to the Chairman of the Commission, in the alternative, as exceptions to the Hearing Examiner = s Recommended Report and Order, which is pending before the Commission. Counsel for the Charging Party acknowledged the correctness of the Hearing Examiner = s efforts to communicate with him as set forth in H.E. No. 82-42, supra. Counsel for the Charging Party then proceeded to offer excuses for his neglect to communicate, among which are listed as A busy trial schedule resulting from the injury of an associate which resulted in a doubling of counsel = s case load for a period of time @ and counsel having become A involved as an advisor to the Englewood Teachers = Association during the currency of a long and embroiled labor dispute and was required to prepare response for interim relief motions...before this Commission. @ The Hearing Examiner finds the excuses offered by the Counsel for the Charging Party to be unpersuasive. Counsel was not asked to appear at a hearing before the undersigned nor was he asked to prepare and file a brief or other papers necessitating substantial consumption of time. All that counsel for the Charging Party was asked to do was to return at least one of four telephone calls to his office involving the expenditure of a minute or two. Even if the Hearing Examiner treats the instant Motion for Reconsideration under the standards for opening judgments as set forth in the New Jersey Civil Practice Rules (R. 4:50-1), the instant motion would fail since there is not involved any mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. @ Plainly, the neglect herein involved was inexcusable. * * * For all of the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner makes the following ORDER The Charging Party = s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. /s/Alan R. Howe Hearing Examiner DATED: April 12, 1982 Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of HE 82-45 *****