D.U.P. NO. 98-14
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
In the Matter of
HAWTHORNE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
-and- Docket No. CO-96-400
HAWTHORNE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent,
Fogarty & Hara, attorneys
(Ellen Marie Walsh, of counsel)
For the Charging Party,
Klausner & Hunter, attorneys
(Stephen B. Hunter, of counsel)
DECISION
On June 17, 1996, the Hawthorne Teachers Association filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Hawthorne 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/ by actions it has taken concerning health insurance coverage
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."
for Association-represented employees of the Board. First, on April 9, 1996, the Board announced that effective July 1, 1996, it was unilaterally changing health insurance carriers from the New Jersey State Health Benefits Plan (SHBP) to a 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. 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 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. However, the level of benefits may not be altered without good faith negotiations. 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 allegation in a charge asserting
that an employer changed insurance carriers without negotiating with a majority representative will be dismissed. Tp. of Irvington, D.U.P. No. 94-31, 20 NJPER 144 ( & 25069 1994).
The parties' collective bargaining agreement for the term of July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997 includes health insurance benefits language. The relevant arbitration language in Article IV C. provides for advisory arbitration of class grievances. The Board will not agree to binding arbitration of this matter filed on behalf of the entire Association. Accordingly, deferral is not appropriate in this instance and the issue must be addressed at a hearing. Metuchen; Stafford Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 90-17, 15 NJPER 527 (& 20217 1989).
An employer is obligated to provide specific documents and information about any change in a health insurance plan. An employer's refusal to provide this information could violate the Act, so these allegations must also be addressed at a hearing. See Lakewood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 97-44, 22 NJPER 397 (& 27215 1996).2/
Accordingly, based on the above discussion, I dismiss the allegation that the Board changed health insurance carriers without negotiating with the Association. However, I will issue a complaint and notice of hearing on the allegations concerning the alteration
2/ The failure to supply information is normally not appropriate for deferral. See generally, NLRB v. ACME Industrial Co., 385 U.S . 432, 64 LRRM 2069 (1967).
of the level of benefits and the refusal to provide information about the new plan. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a)-2.3.
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
Edmund G. Gerber, Director
DATED: August 26, 1997
Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of DUP 98-14 ***** |