D.U.P. NO. 83-8

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

JERSEY CITY,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-83-15

TERENCE RUDDY, JR.,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on September 7, 1982, by Terence Ruddy, Jr. (the "Charging Party") against Jersey City (the "Respondent") alleging that the Respondent 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(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.

The Charging Party alleges that over the period of 1972 through 1977, the City first failed to reinstate him as a firefighter and, thereafter, upon his reinstatement failed to reappoint him to a line firefighting position. The City's actions are alleged to be predicated upon its adherence to wrongful assessments of the Charging Party's medical condition by its appointed medical personnel. Charging Party states that by these actions he has been deprived of pension credits, denied an opportunity to bid on certain job openings and has been victimized by age discrimination. He also asserts that he was not paid for two months after being reinstated.5/

Although the Charging Party has alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) and (3), he has not identified the rights under the Act which have arguably been interfered with and his statement of facts does not indicate that the employer was motivated to discriminate against him due to his exercise of any protected activities as set forth in the Act, such as activities in support of an employee representative.

The Charging Party has been advised of the above deficiencies in his Charge, but has not provided any additional materials in support of his allegations.

Accordingly, inasmuch as the Charging Party has failed to posit any nexus between his employer's actions and his exercise of any rights under the Act, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	December 16, 1982

Trenton, New Jersey