D.U.P. NO. 80-31

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

OVERBROOK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-80-23

GEORGEENA BAILEY,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Berkley Howard, President

For the Charging Party

Melvin A. Jacobs, attorney

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on January 28, 1980 by Georgeena Bailey (the "Charging Party") against Overbrook Employees Association (the "Association") alleging that the Association 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(b)(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.

The Charging Party indicates that she did not receive an increment in 1979 under the contract negotiated by the Respondent and the public employer, County of Essex. She did receive a $400 bonus, but contends that she should have received an increment on her anniversary date in accordance with statements made to her when hired. The Charge also suggests that all unit employees have not been treated alike under the collective bargaining agreement.

According to the agreement, bonuses are provided in place of increments for those individuals who did not receive 1979 increments.5/ The Charge admits that the public employer and the exclusive representative have negotiated over the elimination of increments. It therefore follows that the parties' negotiations obligations have been met. There is no claim that the agreement between the County and the Association is not being adhered to by these parties.

As to the allegation that all unit employees have not been treated alike, there is no claim herein that the classifications of employees have been treated dissimilarly. Further, there is no factual claim that the Association has acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory or bad faith manner. In the absence of such conduct, according different treatment to different classification of employees is not, by itself, an unfair practice. See Belen, et al. v. Woodbridge B/E & Woodbridge Fed./Teachers, Local 822, AFT, AFL-CIO, 142 N.J. Super. 486 (1976), certif. den. 72 N.J. 458 (1976); In re Township of Springfield, D.U.P. No. 79-13, 5 NJPER 15 (¶10008 1978). See also Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953).

Accordingly, the instant Charge does not allege facts which, if true, may constitute unfair practices on the part of the Association. Therefore, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	June 11, 1980

Trenton, New Jersey