D.U.P. NO. 85-11

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

MT. OLIVE TOWNSHIP,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-84-102

MT. OLIVE TOWNSHIP POLICE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Vogel & Chait, attorneys

(Aron M. Schwartz, of counsel)

For the Charging Party

Schwartz, Pisano & Simon, attorneys

(Nathanya Simon, of counsel)

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on October 12, 1983, by the Mt. Olive Township Police Employees Association ("Association") against Mt. Olive Township ("Township") alleging that the Township 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. ("Act"), specifically N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.4(a)(1), (3), (4) and (5).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. The 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 and that formal proceedings in respect thereto should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues.3/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.4/

For the reasons stated below, a complaint shall not issue.

The Association's charge has reference to two employees represented by the Association: Richard Rich and Rich Wahl.

The matter involving Richard Rich concerns his discharge for filing a workers compensation claim. It does not appear to the undersigned that the Act contemplates the filing of a workers compensation claim as a protected activity. Since there appears to be no allegation that Mr. Rich has engaged in protected activities described under the Act, particularly §5.3, at a time relative to either his discharge or the denial of accumulated vacation pay, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint under §§5.4(a)(1), (3) and (4).

As to Rich Wahl, it is alleged that the employer violated §§5.4(a)(5) of the Act when, upon promoting Wahl to Mechanic I, it did not establish his salary in accordance with the parties' contractual agreement. Accordingly, Charging Party states that the Respondent, "refused to negotiate payment [sic] in violation of the Negotiated Agreement and in the absence of negotiations to the contrary." In the processing of the unfair practice charge, the Commission was advised that the Association has successfully grieved Wahl's salary placement with the employer. Accordingly, this aspect of the unfair practice charge is moot.

Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	October 10, 1984

Trenton, New Jersey