D.U.P. NO. 80-19

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

ROXBURY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-80-21

THOMAS DUFFY SHEARY,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Schenck, Price, Smith & King, attorneys

(David B. Rand, of counsel)

For the Charging Party

John W. Davis, UniServ Field Representative

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on January 16, 1980 and amended on February 11, 1980 by Thomas Duffy Sheary (the "Charging Party") against the Roxbury Township Board of Education (the "Board") alleging that the Board was engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (the "Act"), specifically N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(3) and (4).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 reasons stated below, the undersigned has determined that the Commission's complaint issuance standards have not been met.

The Charging Party states that he was fired as a mathematics teaching staff member of the Board in April 1979, due to improper certification. After obtaining full certification in the summer 1979, the Charging Party requested reemployment. After the Board declined his request, he filed a petition before the Commissioner of Education through his majority representative. In December 1979, the Board advertised two job openings for mathematics teachers. Charging Party applied for a position but, allegedly, was advised that because he had filed a petition, his application was not going to be considered.

Charging Party claims that the Board discriminated against him because he filed the petition before the Commissioner of Education. He asserts that this alleged discrimination violates N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(3) and (4).

Having reviewed the Charge, the undersigned concludes that it has not been raised before the appropriate forum. This matter is predominantly related to a proceeding before the Department of Education and should be addressed to that agency.5/ See City of Hackensack v. Winner, et al., ___ N.J. ___ (January 22, 1980). Therefore, under these circumstances the undersigned declines to issue a complaint herein.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF REPRESENTATION

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	March 18, 1980

Trenton, New Jersey