D.U.P. NO. 98-3 1.
D.U.P. NO. 98-3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
In the Matter of
NORTHERN VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
-and- Docket No. CO-97-294
NORTHERN VALLEY REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL
SECRETARIES ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent,
Sills, Cummis
(Cherie L. Maxwell, of counsel)
For the Charging Party,
Klausner & Hunter, attorneys
(Stephen B. Hunter, of counsel)
DECISION
On March 3 and March 25, 1997, the Northern Valley Regional Educational Secretaries Association filed an unfair labor practice charge and amendment alleging that the Northern Valley Regional High School District Board of Education violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq ., specifically subsections 5.4(a)(1) and (5)1/ through actions it
1/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative."
has taken concerning health insurance coverage for Association-represented employees of the Board. First, on April 22, 1996, the Board announced that effective July 1, 1996, it was unilaterally changing health insurance carriers from the State Health Benefits Plan (SHBP) to the Joint Insurance Fund (JIF) administered by Insurance Design Associates (IDA). The Association further alleges that by changing carriers, the Board reduced the level of health benefits provided to unit members, and unilaterally did so without negotiations with the Association. The Association became aware of the differences of health benefits coverages as of February 1, 1997. Finally, the Association alleges that despite their demand that the Board provide specific, detailed, written information regarding all aspects of the coverages to be provided through the JIF, the Board has refused to supply the Association with the details and documents describing the new health insurance plan.
The Board denies violating the Act asserting that it has a managerial prerogative to change carriers, that the level of benefits provided by the JIF is equal to or better than those provided by the SHBP, and that it has provided information received from the JIF to the Association.
An employer has the right to select which carrier will provide the agreed upon level of health insurance benefits, so long as a change in carriers has no appreciable affect on the level of benefits provided. Bor. of Metuchen, P.E.R.C. No. 84-91, 10 NJPER
127 ( & 15065 1984); City of Newark , P.E.R.C. No. 82-5, 7 NJPER 439 ( & 12195 1981); Bor. of Paramus , P.E.R.C. No. 86-17, 11 NJPER 502 ( & 16178 1985). Accordingly, an employer's change of insurance carriers without negotiating with a majority representative does not constitute an unfair practice. Tp. of Irvington, D.U.P. No. 94-31, 20 NJPER 144 ( & 25069 1994).
Additionally, an employer is obligated to provide specific documents and information about any change in a health insurance plan. The refusal to provide this information is violative of the Act. See Lakewood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 97-44, 22 NJPER 397 (& 27215 1996).2/
I dismiss the allegation in the charge asserting that the Board changed health insurance carriers without negotiating with the Association.
However, I will issue a complaint and notice of hearing concerning the other allegations raised by the Association because they raise issues which, if true, could constitute unfair practices. Employers are prohibited from refusing to negotiate with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit
2/ The failure to supply information is normally not appropriate for deferral to arbitration. See generally, NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S . 432, 64 LRRM 2069 (1967).
concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit. 3/ Additionally, the Board's alleged refusal to provide information to the Association about the new health insurance plan could be an unfair practice. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a)-2.3.
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
Edmund G. Gerber, Director
DATED: July 15, 1997
Trenton, New Jersey
3/ The collective bargaining agreement between these parties does not provide for binding arbitration of grievances, therefore, the alleged change in the level of health benefits cannot be deferred to arbitration. Stafford Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 90-17, 15 NJPER 527 ( & 20217 1989); Metuchen. ***** End of DUP 98-3 ***** |