Back

D.U.P. No. 91-24

Synopsis:

The Director of Unfair Practices declines to issue a complaint brought by Kathy Crawford and Jimmy Watson against the Salem City Board of Education and IFPTE Local 195. The City eliminated the position of security guard and Local 105 refused to process a grievance protesting the layoffs. The Board had a managerial right to eliminate the position and, although the Union has a duty to fairly represent its employees, it was not unreasonable for the Union to not process a grievance that was not arbitrable.

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 91-24, 17 NJPER 237 (¶22103 1991)

Appellate History:



Additional:



Miscellaneous:



NJPER Index:

23.24 43.521 73.113

Issues:

    DecisionsWordPerfectPDF
    NJ PERC:.DUP 91 24.wpd - DUP 91 24.wpdDUP 91-024.pdf - DUP 91-024.pdf

    Appellate Division:

    Supreme Court:



    D.U.P. NO. 91-24 1.
    D.U.P. NO. 91-24
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
    BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

    In the Matter of

    IFPTE, LOCAL 195 and
    SALEM CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

    Respondents,

    -and- Docket Nos. CI-89-12,
    CI-89-13 & CI-89-14
    KATHY CRAWFORD AND JIMMY WATSON,

    Charging Parties.

    Appearances:

    For the Respondent, Salem City Board of Education
    Barbour & Costa, attorneys
    (John T. Barbour, of counsel)

    For the Respondent, IFPTE Local 195
    Donald R. Philippi

    For the Charging Parties,
    Kathy E. Crawford, pro se

    REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

    In July 1988, Kathy Crawford and Jimmy Watson filed a series of unfair practice charges against the Salem City Board of Education and IFPTE, Local 195. Their claims center around the Board's elimination of their positions as security guards and the Union's refusal to appeal the Board's denial of a grievance brought on their behalf. Crawford's charges, if true, would not constitute an unfair practice.

    The Board's elimination of a position in this case, security guard, is a managerial prerogative. It is therefore not


    negotiable and not arbitrable. Hunterdon County , P.E.R.C. No. 81-114, 7 NJPER 230 ( & 12100 1981).

    The Association had the obligation to fairly represent them. However, a violation of that duty occurs only when a union's conduct toward a member of the collective negotiations unit is arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. Saginario v. Attorney General, 87 N.J . 240 (1981). Here it was not unreasonable for the union to decline to further process a grievance which was not arbitrable. Accordingly, the charges are dismissed in their entirety.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met and no complaint will issue on the allegations of these charges.

    BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

    OF UNFAIR PRACTICES




    Edmund G. Gerber, Director

    DATED: April 10, 1991
    Trenton, New Jersey

    ***** End of DUP 91-24 *****