1/ UAW's petition identifies the position assigned to the chief as principal clerk typist, while the Township states that the chief's secretary is actually titled senior clerk typist. It is clear that the dispute concerns the secretary to the chief, presently occupied by Angie Fantuzzi.

We have conducted an investigation into the issue raised by the petition. N.J.A.C . 19:11-2.2 and 2.6. An investigatory conference was conducted by a Commission staff agent, and the parties were asked to supply additional information and to consider informal resolution of the petition. The parties each asked for additional time to respond and such requests were granted. The Township filed a written position statement together with supporting documents which it asked be kept confidential. The UAW was made aware of the general content and nature of the documents submitted by the Township. On August 10, 2001, the parties were notified of our tentative findings and invited to respond. Neither party has responded. Based upon our investigation, I make the following:

3. Angie Fantuzzi was hired in September 1999 as a part-time clerk, was appointed to full-time clerk typist in January 2000, and promoted to senior clerk typist in March 2000. In January 2000, Fantuzzi assumed the duties of the police chief's secretary previously performed by Schroeder. These duties include typing memoranda, reports, and correspondence; maintaining files; opening and routing mail, including the chief's answers to grievances; and handling materials prepared by the chief for use by the Township in collective negotiations. The Township also submitted documents typed by Fantuzzi since January 2000, which include certain personnel matters the chief was investigating.

4. The police chief is an integral part of the Township's negotiations team. The previous chief, Kenneth Johnson, prepared and submitted his negotiations suggestions to the Township manager prior to negotiations. His secretary at the time, Schroeder, typed the memoranda and was aware of the chief's suggestions in advance of their disclosure to the employee organizations.

5. Chief Roy Wherry was appointed in March 2000, and has not yet been involved in the Township's negotiations. It is expected that Wherry will have the same role that Johnson had on the Township's negotiations team. Since January 2000, no negotiations have occurred between the Township and its police negotiations unit or the UAW. Thus, there has not yet been an opportunity for Fantuzzi to type or file confidential negotiations materials. Wherry will prepare his written recommendations for negotiations in the form of proposals and strategies, and he intends to have Fantuzzi type these memoranda to the Township manager. It is expected with a high degree of certainty that Fantuzzi, like Schroeder, will be aware of the Township's negotiations positions and strategies before they are revealed to any union.

In State of New Jersey , the Commission explained the approach taken in determining whether an employee is confidential. The Commission stated:

We scrutinize the facts of each case to find for whom each employee works, what [the employee] does, and what [the employee] knows about collective negotiations issues. Finally, we determine whether the responsibilities or knowledge of each employee would compromise the employer's right to confidentiality concerning the collective negotiations process if the employee [were] included in a negotiating unit. [ Id. at 510.]

See also River Dell Reg. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 83-21, 9 NJPER 180 ( & 14084 1983), req. for rev. den. P.E.R.C. No. 84-95, 10 NJPER 148 ( & 15073 1984).

The key to confidential status is an employee's access to and knowledge of materials used in labor relations processes including contract negotiations, contract administration, grievance handling and the preparation for these processes. See State of New Jersey (Div. of State Police ), D.R. No. 84-9, 9 NJPER 613 ( & 14262 1983). Employees in clerical positions are often deemed confidential due to their superior's role in the labor relations process and their own performance of clerical support duties which expose them to confidential matters. See W. Milford Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 56, NJPER Supp . 218 (& 56 1971); Salem Comm. Coll.,

P.E.R.C. No. 88-71, 14 NJPER 136 ( & 19054 1988); River Dell . An employee who performs such tasks will be determined to be confidential within the meaning of the Act.

Access to negotiations and grievance documents through typing and photocopying them and maintaining files containing them may indicate confidential status. See Sayreville Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 88-109, 14 NJPER 341 (& 19129 1988), aff'd NJPER Supp .2d 207 (& 182 App. Div. 1989)(secretary who maintained grievance files and had advance knowledge of employer's grievance responses was confidential); River Dell. Thus, in New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. AFSCME, Council 73, 150 N.J . 331 (1997), the New Jersey Supreme Court approved the standards articulated in State of New Jersey and explained:

The baseline inquiry remains whether an employee's functional responsibilities or knowledge would make their membership in any appropriate negotiating unit incompatible with their official duties. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3(g); see also State of New Jersey , supra, 11 NJPER 507 ( & 16179 1985) (holding that final determination is 'whether the responsibilities or knowledge of each employee would compromise the employer's right to confidentiality concerning the collective negotiations process if the employee was included in a negotiating unit.'). Obviously, an employee's access to confidential information may be significant in determining whether that employee's functional responsibilities or knowledge make membership in a negotiating unit inappropriate. However, mere physical access to information without any accompanying insight about its significance or functional responsibility for its development or implementation may be insufficient in specific cases to warrant exclusion. The test should be employee-specific, and its focus on ascertaining whether, in the totality of the circumstances, an

employee's access to information, knowledge concerning its significance, or functional responsibilities in relation to the collective negotiations process make incompatible that employee's inclusion in a negotiating unit. We entrust to PERC in the first instance the responsibility for making such determinations on a case-by-case basis. [ Id. at 358.]

UAW asserts that Fantuzzi has not yet performed any functions that would make her confidential within the meaning of the Act. The Commission has been cautious in finding confidential status, as such a finding exempts the employee from the protections of the Act. N.J.S.A . 34:13A-5.3. Where such a determination relies upon "speculation or conjecture as to job function," the Commission has found that such circumstances are insufficient to warrant excluding the employees from the unit. Lacey Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 90-38, 15 NJPER ( & 20263 1989); Wayne Tp ., P.E.R.C. No. 87-82, 13 NJPER 77 ( & 18035 1986). However, we will find confidential status where the duties are clear and their implementation is certain. Tp. of Belleville, D.R. No. 92-33, 18 NJPER 335 ( & 23148 1992); Commercial Tp ., D.R. No. 91-9, 16 NJPER 511 ( & 21223 1990).

Applying the facts in this matter to the standards set forth above, I find that the secretary to the Township's police chief is a confidential employee within the meaning of the Act. There have been no collective negotiations since Fantuzzi's appointment to the position and, thus, there has been little opportunity for her to handle materials related to negotiations. However, Chief Wherry is clearly expected to be a member of the

Township's negotiations team, as was his predecessor. The new chief expects Fantuzzi to continue the role of the former secretary by typing his proposals for negotiations and handling other negotiations memoranda. Fantuzzi will be expected to type grievance responses and confidential memoranda on contract administration issues for the chief, as did Schroeder. Moreover, she has already had occasion to type documents pertaining to certain personnel matters which contain the chief's interpretation of one of the labor agreements and his investigation into a confidential personnel matter; therefore, she knew the Township's view of these matters prior to their disclosure to any employees or majority representatives. Performance of these types of duties give the chief's secretary advanced knowledge of the Township's labor strategies and, therefore, renders the employee confidential within the meaning of the Act. See W. Milford; Salem Comm. Coll; River Dell; Sayreville.

Based upon all of the foregoing, if Fantuzzi were to be placed into the UAW's unit, the Township's ability to maintain confidentiality with regard to the collective negotiations process would be compromised. Therefore, I find that Senior Clerk Typist Angie Fantuzzi, as secretary to the police chief, is a confidential employee within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, must be excluded from the existing unit since her functional responsibilities and knowledge of issues involved in the collective negotiations process make her membership in the negotiations unit incompatible with her official duties.