D.U.P. NO. 83-10

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

UNION COUNTY BOARD OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-83-27

EDWARD M. MITCHELL,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on November 22, 1981, by Edward M. Mitchell ("Charging Party") against the Union County Board of Social Services ("Respondent") alleging that the Respondent engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act"), specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1).1/

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) sets forth in pertinent part that the Commission shall have the power to prevent anyone from engaging in any unfair practice, and that it has the authority to issue a complaint stating the unfair practice charge.2/ The Commission has delegated its authority to issue complaints to the undersigned and has established a standard upon which an unfair practice complaint may be issued. This standard provides that a complaint shall issue if it appears that the allegations of the charging party, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act.3/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.4/

For the following reasons the undersigned has determined that the Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met with respect to the instant charge.

The Charging Party alleges that the Respondent unfairly terminated him from a Civil Service position at the conclusion of his probationary period. He alleges that he had been led to believe by his supervisor that his work performance had been improving and that he would be receiving a favorable evaluation. He claims that he was "duped" into believing that he would be retained by the Respondent, and that his poor evaluation was unexpected. At a meeting attended by the Board's Director and his administrative supervisor, the Charging Party was informed that because of his poor evaluation he would be terminated, unless he resigned. Charging Party asserts that the Director told him that unless he resigned, he would never again be able to obtain a Civil Service position. The Charging Party then resolved to sign his termination notice.

In order for a complaint to issue with respect to §5.4(a)(1), a charging party must allege facts which indicate an interference with rights guaranteed under the Act. The undersigned, having reviewed the statement of the Charge, cannot discern a nexus between the asserted facts and a possible violation of rights guaranteed under the Employer-Employee Relations Act.5/

Accordingly, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Joel C. Scharff, Acting Director

DATED:	March 25, 1983

Trenton, New Jersey