D.U.P. NO. 84-14

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-84-14

MORRIS COUNCIL #6, NEW JERSEY

CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Louis Rosner, attorney

For the Charging Party

Morris & Hantman, attorneys

(Walter C. Morris, of counsel)

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

On July 20, 1983, Morris Council #6, New Jersey Civil Service Association ("CSA") filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission"). The charge, which was amended on October 13, 1983, alleged that the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills ("Township") violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act"), specifically §§ 5.4(a)(1), (2) and (3),1/ when it disregarded the terms of the parties' collective negotiations agreement and refused to grant four employees, two of whom were CSA shop stewards, additional vacation time.

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 standards have not been met with regard to the instant charge.

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 six months prior to the filing of the charge unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge in which event the six months period shall be computed from the day he was no longer so prevented.

In addition, the Commission's rules provide that an unfair practice charge shall contain inter alia:

A clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice, including, where known, the time and place of occurrence of the particular acts alleged and the names of respondent's agents or other representative by whom committed and a statement of the portion or portions of the Act alleged to have been violated. (emphasis added)5/

In reading the amended charge, the undersigned is unable to ascertain exactly, or even approximately, when the alleged unfair practice occurred. Accordingly, the undersigned would be compelled to decline to issue a complaint on that ground alone.6/

As noted above, the Commission's rules also provide that an unfair practice charge shall contain, inter alia, "[a] clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice. . . ."7/

Even assuming that the amended charge is timely filed, it does not present any allegations of anti-union animus to support the claim of a violation of §§ (a)(1), (2) or (3). It appears to the undersigned that CSA's charge raises a dispute which is purely contractual in nature concerning vacation policy and procedure.8/

Based upon the above analysis, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint with respect to the instant charge.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	December 2, 1983

Trenton, New Jersey