D.R. NO. 82-52 1.
D.R. NO. 82-52
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION
In the Matter of
MORRIS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Public Employer,
-and- Docket No. CU-81-62
SECRETARIES AND CLERKS ASSOCIATION
OF MORRIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AFT, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Appearances:
For the Public Employer
Wiley, Malehorn & Sirota, Esqs.
(Frederic J. Sirota, Esq.)
For the Petitioner
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
(Fougeres Ferrier, Staff Representative)
DECISION
On April 9, 1981, the Secretaries and Clerks Association of Morris Public Schools, AFT, AFL-CIO ( A SCAMPS @ ) filed a Petition for Clarification of Unit with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the A Commission @ ), seeking to add the newly created title of Accounting Services Supervisor to the negotiations unit which it represents. SCAMPS asserts that the Accounting Services Supervisor position is virtually identical to a A Federal and Special Projects Bookkeeper @ position which it previously represented, and that Accounting Services Supervisor shares a community of interest with the members of the negotiations unit represented by SCAMPS, and that the Accounting Services Supervisor is neither a supervisor nor a confidential employee within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13a-1 et seq. (the A Act @ ). The Morris School District (the A District @ ) asserts that the title is excluded from the unit on the grounds that the functional duties and responsibilities of the position are supervisory and/or confidential in nature.
Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, a hearing was held before Commission Hearing Officer, Mark A. Rosenbaum, on September 16, 1981, in Newark, New Jersey, at which time all parties were afforded the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence and to argue orally. Both parties submitted post-hearing briefs prior to November 4, 1981. The Hearing Officer submitted his report and recommendations on December 29, 1981, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Thereafter, SCAMPS filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations, and the District filed cross- exceptions.
The undersigned has considered the entire record herein, including the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations, the transcript and the exhibits, the exceptions and cross-exceptions to the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations, and on the basis thereof, find and determines as follows:
1. The Morris School District is a public employer within the meaning of the Act, is the employer of the employee who is the subject of this petition, and is subject to the provisions of the Act.
2. The Secretaries and Clerks Association of Morris Public Schools, AFT, AFL-CIO is an employee representative within the meaning of the Act, is subject to its provisions, has filed the instant petition to clarify the status of the title A Accounting Services supervisor @ and requests inclusion of the title in the existing unit.
3. SCAMPS represents a unit consisting of all part-time and full-time Team Teacher Aides, Library Clerks I and II, Clerk Typists, Secretaries I, II and III, Telephone Operator/Receptionists, Data Analysts, Accounting Clerks I, II, III and IV, Computer/Keypunch Operators, Administrative Secretaries I and II, Purchasing Clerks and Purchasing Assistants employed by the District, but excluding Teaching Staff, Police, Managerial Executives, Confidential Employees, Craft Workers, and Supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
4. The title A Accounting Services Supervisor @ was created and filled in October 1980, but the District = s appointment of Barbara Chelton to this position was made retroactive to July 1, 1980. These events occurred prior to the execution of the current contract between the parties.
5. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Accounting Services Supervisor was not a confidential employee but that she was a supervisor and therefore not includable in the unit.1/
SCAMPS takes exception to the Hearing Officer = s finding that the Accounting Services supervisor is a supervisor based on her role in effectively hiring new personnel. SCAMPS argues that since all three of the hired applicants came from within the district, they were well-known to the Accounting Services Supervisor = s superiors, whose acquiescence was required for each hiring. Moreover, SCAMPS asserts that the Board = s Secretary = s decision to acquiesce to the Accounting Services Supervisor = s judgment in one of the three hiring instances did not indicate an effective hiring recommendation by the Accounting Services Supervisor. Rather, SCAMPS asserts that the Board Secretary = s decision confirms her ultimate authority in the hiring process, although she made an isolated but informed decision not to wield that authority in this particular case.
SCAMPS relies upon the undersigned = s decision In re Brookdale Community College, D.R. 78-10, 4 NJPER 932 ( & 4018 1977), in which, by SCAMP = s own admission, A the established hiring practice....was more complex and more formal than the established hiring process presented in the instant matter. @ In Brookdale, the hiring process involved the necessity of review and input on an applicant by various officials within the College hierarchy, to such degree that the initial recommendation became attenuated. Moreover, in most cases approval of an applicant at various stages of the hiring process was required to be evidenced in writing and contained in an employment recommendation form which proceeded through the various levels of authority. Here, no such formal or even written approval of an applicant was required. It is clear that the ultimate hiring decision is made by the Board. However, in all three instances contained in the record, the Board = s approval appeared to be based primarily upon the Accounting Services Supervisor = s recommendation.
An examination of the record reveals that the Accounting Services Supervisor plays a formal and regular role in the hiring process which requires her to interview all candidates for positions in her department and to recommend particular candidates. Her recommendations are forwarded to the Assistant Board Secretary, who forwards them to the Board Secretary, who forwards them to the Board for the final hiring determination. Each participant in the hiring process may offer her own comments or recommendations. To date, all three candidates recommended for hire by the Accounting Services Supervisor were ultimately hired by the Board of Education. Furthermore, the Board Secretary testified that in one instance she disagreed with the recommendation of the Accounting Services Supervisor, but nonetheless the individual recommended by the Accounting Services Supervisor was hired.
Under the circumstances herein, which indicate deference by the District and its agents to the hiring recommendations of the Accounting Services supervisor, the undersigned concludes that the Accounting Services Supervisor manifests the power to make effective hiring recommendations, and is thus a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, based upon her effective hiring of personnel, the undersigned concludes that the Accounting Services Supervisor is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. She may not be represented within the Association = s non-supervisory negotiations unit.2/
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
OF REPRESENTATION
/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director
DATED: May 3, 1982
Trenton, New Jersey
1/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 provides, in pertinent part:
...Nor, except where established practice, prior agreement or special circumstances, dictate the contrary, shall any supervisor having the power to hire, discharge, discipline or to effectively recommend the same, have the right to be represented in collective negotiations by an employee organization that admits nonsupervisory personnel to membership . . .
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6(d) provides:
The division shall decide in each instance which unit of employees is appropriate for collective negotiations, provided that, except where dictated by established practice, prior agreement, or special circumstances, no unit shall be appropriate which includes (1) both supervisors and nonsupervisors....
2/ Because of the determination that the Accounting Services Supervisor is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and may not be included in the Association = s unit, the undersigned need not consider the additional issue raised in this proceeding concerning her alleged confidential status.
***** End of DR 82-52 ***** |