H.E. NO. 96-19 1.
H.E. NO. 96-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of
LAKEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
-and- Docket No. CO-95-282
LAKEWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION/NJEA,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent,
Richard K. Sacks, attorney
For the Charging Party,
John Thornton, Field Rep.
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDED DECISION
On February 21, 1995, the Lakewood Education Association/NJEA filed an unfair practice charge against the Lakewood Board of Education alleging that the Board engaged in an unfair practice within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) and (5).1/ The parties were engaged in negotiations for a successor
1/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.
collective negotiations agreement to one which expired in June 1995. It was specifically alleged that during the course of negotiations, the Board of Education proposed numerous changes in its health benefit plan. The Association requested certain information with regards to the cost of the current Board of Education health plan and in particular, the cost of those portions directly related to the Board's proposals. The Board refused to produce the information requested. Specifically, the Board refused to answer two questions.
1. What savings does the Board of Education realize if the no-deductible proposals are enacted as presented?
2. What are the costs to the Board of Education to terminate the agreement with the present carrier?
On May 3, 1995, the Association filed an order to show cause seeking an interim order compelling the Board to provide this information. The order was executed, and after a hearing was conducted on May 17, 1995, Lakewood Board of Education was ordered to provide the financial information requested. (I.R. No. 95-22, 21 NJPER 233 (& 26149 1995).
The Board filed an appeal with the Appellate Division, Dkt. No. A-5590-94T1. That application was denied and the order was ultimately complied with by the Board.
It is apparent that this dispute is resolved and the charge is moot. The Commission will not exercise its judgment when a dispute is moot. Delran Tp. B/E, P.E.R.C. No. 95-17, 20 NJPER 379
( & 25191 1994); Rutgers University , P.E.R.C. No. 88-1, 13 NJPER 631 ( & 18235 1985) aff'd App. Div. Dkt No. A-174-87T7 (11/23/88); Matawan Aberdeen Reg. Schl. Dist., P.E.R.C. No. 88-52, 14 NJPER 57 (& 19019 1987).
Accordingly, I recommend the Commission find the matter moot and dismiss the unfair practice charge.
Edmund G. Gerber
Hearing Examiner
Dated: March 22, 1996
Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of HE 96-19 ***** |