D.U.P. NO. 83-6

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

(TRENTON STATE PRISON),

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-83-8

HOWARD DAVIS,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on August 4, 1982 by Howard Davis (the "Charging Party") against the State of New Jersey (Trenton State Prison) (the "State") alleging that the State 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., as amended, (the "Act"), specifically N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.4(a)(1) and (3).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.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c), the Commission is precluded from issuing a complaint where the unfair practice charge has not been filed within six months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair practice. More specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.4(c) provides: ". . . provided that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge in which event the 6 months period shall be computed from the day he was no longer so prevented."

The Charging Party herein alleges that beginning January 9, 1982 he, as well as other supervisors, has been required to report to work early, without additional compensation. The date of the alleged unfair practice is beyond the six month period preceding the filing of the unfair practice charge.

Moreover, the Charging Party has not alleged facts indicating that the alleged change of his working hours was an act taken by the employer in retaliation for his exercise of rights under the Act. Thus, there is no factual basis to support his allegation that the State's conduct violates subsections 5.4(a)(1) and (3).

Accordingly, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	November 29, 1982

Trenton, New Jersey