D.R. NO. 79-7

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Public Employer,

-and-	Docket No. RO-77-13

ASSOCIATION OF PARSIPPANY SUPERVISORS,

ADMINISTRATORS AND COORDINATORS,

Petitioner.

In the Matter of

PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Public Employer/Petitioner,

-and-	Docket No. CU-77-24

ASSOCIATION OF PARSIPPANY SCHOOL

ADMINISTRATORS,

Employee Representative.

Appearances:

For the Public Employer,

Murray, Meagher & Granello, Esqs.

(Robert J. Hrebek, of Counsel)

For the Association of Parsippany Supervisors,

Administrators and Coordinators

Greenberg & Mellk, Esqs.

(Arnold M. Mellk, of Counsel)

For the Association of Parsippany School Administrators

Harper & O'Brien, Esqs.

(John J. Harper, of Counsel)

DECISION

On August 10, 1976, a Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") by the Association of Parsippany Supervisors, Administrators and Coordinators ("APSAC") seeking certification as the exclusive representative for collective negotiations of a unit of certain non-represented administrative employees of the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Board of Education (the "Board"). On October 19, 1976, the Board filed a Clarification of Unit Petition seeking clarification of the composition of an already existing unit of its employees represented by the Association of Parsippany School Administrators ("APSA"). The Board's Petition primarily related to the employees petitioned for by APSAC. The instant proceedings were consolidated by an Order dated February 10, 1977, on which date a Notice of Hearing was issued, and a hearing was held on May 26 and 27, 1977, before Hearing Officer James F. Schwerin. All parties were provided with the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence and to argue orally. Post-hearing briefs and reply briefs were submitted by all parties.

As noted by the Hearing Officer, both Petitions were amended subsequent to the commencement of hearing. In its final form the APSAC Petition sought a unit consisting of coordinators, administrative assistants, and supervisors.1/ The Board's clarification Petition seeks to have the APSA unit2/ expanded by the inclusion of the employees sought by APSAC. The Board also seeks clarification of the APSA unit to exclude the Director of Secondary Education and the Director of Elementary Education.

The Hearing Officer issued his Report and Recommendations on January 11, 1978. A copy is annexed hereto and made a part hereof. The undersigned granted a request by APSAC for an extension of time in which to file exceptions and on March 1, 1978, APSAC filed such exceptions.

The Hearing Officer recommended that APSAC's Petition, and that portion of the Board's Petition relating to the employees petitioned for by APSAC, be dismissed; and that the Directors of Secondary Education and Elementary Education be excluded from the APSA unit effective at the end of the currently existing contract.

APSAC takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that its petitioned-for unit is not the most appropriate unit and the recommended dismissal of its Petition. APSAC takes further exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendation of dismissal as to those aspects of the Board's Clarification of Unit Petition which seeks to add these non-represented administrators to the existing APSA unit. APSAC, without conceding that its petitioned-for unit is not the most appropriate unit, contends that once the Hearing Officer found that the most appropriate unit should include the non-represented administrators within the existing APSA unit, the Commission should either (1) accept the Board's Clarification of Unit Petition to include the titles previously not included, or (2) direct an election among the non-
represented administrators which would provide them with the opportunity to choose inclusion in the existing APSA unit.

The undersigned has considered the entire record and the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations and on the facts in this case finds and determines as follows:

1.	The Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Board of Education is a public employer within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., as amended (the "Act"), is the employer of the employees involved herein, and is subject to the Act's provisions.

2.	Association of Parsippany Supervisors, Administrators and Coordinators and Association of Parsippany School Administrators are employee organizations within the meaning of the Act and are subject to its provisions.

3.	Petitions for Certification of Public Employee Representative and Clarification of Unit having been filed with the Commission, and there existing a question concerning the representation of employees as well as a question concerning the composition of a collective negotiations unit, the matters are properly before the undersigned.

4.	The Hearing Officer found that the positions of Director of Secondary Education and Director of Elementary Education entailed such duties as to create a substantial potential conflict of interest with other members of the APSA unit so as to make inclusion in the APSA unit inappropriate. Specifically, the record shows that those duties include responsibility in the area of adjusting grievances of unit members and evaluating the job performances of unit members. Having reviewed the record evidence, and particularly noting the absence of any exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings as to the exclusion of these titles from the unit, the undersigned adopts the findings of the Hearing Officer and his recommendation that the Directors of Secondary Education and Elementary Education be excluded from the unit at the termination of the existing agreement.3/

5.	The Hearing Officer recommended that the portion of the Board's Clarification of Unit Petition which seeks to include the non-represented administrator titles in the existing APSA unit be dismissed. This recommendation was based upon the application of the standards set out in In re Clearview Regional High School Board of Education, D.R. No. 78-2, 3 NJPER 248 (1977). These standards establish that it is normally inappropriate to utilize a clarification of unit petition to enlarge or diminish the scope of a negotiations unit except as to: a change in circumstances surrounding the duties of a job title; the creation of a new title; the creation of a new operation or facility which raises an issue as to the placement of employees who function similarly to currently represented employees; or to exclude employees from an existing unit cased upon conflict of interest or status as a managerial executive, confidential employee, or a supervisor in a non-supervisory unit.4/

The record in the instant matter does not establish any of the above criteria relative to the employees sought to be added to the existing APSA unit through the Clarification of Unit Petition. The basis for the requested clarification of unit rests solely upon the assertion that an overall community of interest exists among the petitioned-for employees and the currently represented employees. The APSA unit was recognized by the Board in 1969 or 1970 and the unit has consisted basically of the same personnel since that time.5/ The Commission's decision, In re Camden Board of Education, P.E.R.C. No. 76-50, 2 NJPER 228 (1976), aff'g and modifying E.D. No. 76-32, 2 NJPER 123 (1976), as well as the aforementioned Clearview decision clearly establish that community of interest considerations do not alone provide the requisite basis for clarification of a negotiations unit.6/

6.	Regarding APSAC's certification Petition, the Hearing Officer recommended that the most appropriate unit of employees for collective negotiations is one unit including the employees currently represented by APSA and those employees sought to be represented via the APSAC Petition. This recommendation was based upon a determination that a community of interest exists among all those employees and in light of the Commission policy favoring broad-based units, confirmed by the Supreme Court in In re State of New Jersey and Professional Association of New Jersey Department of Education, 64 N.J. 231 (1974).

The record clearly establishes a pattern of consultation and coordination between the employees included in the APSA unit and the employees petitioned-for by APSAC in the performance of their job functions. Furthermore, the record shows that there are no supervisory functions performed by members of one group relative to members of the other group. There is a difference between the groups as to the method of determination of salaries; however, the other terms and conditions of employment are similar. The salary determinations concerning the employees petitioned-for by APSAC are made through a Management by Objectives ("MBO") system while the employees in the APSA unit collectively negotiate salaries. APSA unit members are certified and tenured while the employees petitioned-for by APSAC are not; however, this differentiation is not sufficient to outweigh the clear pattern of interaction and cooperative effort between members of the two groups in the performance of their job functions.

The record supports the Hearing Officer's finding that all of the employees at issue are part of an administrative team which clearly evidences the existence of a community of interest among the overall group of administrators. Therefore, the undersigned agrees with the Hearing Officer that the most appropriate unit would include the currently represented employees and the petitioned-for employees.

The APSAC Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative (Docket No. RO-77-13) seeks to establish a unit for collective negotiations which is a subsection of the most appropriate unit. Therefore, the Petition is dismissed.7/

7.	APSAC, in its exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations, contends that if the Commission finds that the unit petitioned for by APSAC is not the most appropriate unit and if the clarification of unit procedure is found to be improper, an election providing for the option of addition to the existing APSA unit should be ordered among the employees Petitioned for by APSAC. The undersigned does not at this time find merit in APSAC's contention. Currently, there is no petition before the Commission that seeks to accomplish such a result. Furthermore, if it is APSAC's contention that the instant Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative should be considered to seek such a result, the undersigned notes that the Petition filed by APSAC does not reflect that a substantial number of public employees wish to be represented for purposes of collective negotiations by APSA, nor does APSAC's Petition indicate that APSA desires to be certified as a majority representative of these employees.

Finally, the undersigned notes that several procedures are available to add the employees petitioned for herein to the existing APSA unit in order to accomplish representation for collective negotiations of these employees within the most appropriate unit structure. APSA may request recognition from the Board on behalf of the inclusion of these employees in its collective negotiations unit. Failing recognition, APSA may, at the appropriate time for the filing of a Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative, petition for the inclusion of the employees here involved in the most appropriate unit.8/ In the event that APSA fails to petition for such an inclusion, APSAC, or any other employee organization, may petition anew for the unrepresented employees; and, the undersigned advises that such petition will be considered in the context of that portion of the Supreme court's decision in In re State of New Jersey and Professional Association of Department of Education, supra, which indicates that a later determination may be made, under circumstances then existing, which might allow for the authorization of a unit of less than the total body.9/

8.	Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the undersigned dismisses APSAC's Petition (Docket No. RO-77-13). That portion of the Board's Petition (CU-77-24) seeking to add the employees petitioned for by APSAC into the APSA unit be dismissed. APSA's collective negotiations unit is clarified to exclude the Director of Secondary Education and the Director of Elementary Education.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF REPRESENTATION

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	September 8, 1978

Trenton, New Jersey