D.U.P. No. 84-23

Synopsis:

The Administrator of Unfair Practice Proceedings declines to issue a complaint with respect to unfair practice charges filed by the Independence Education Association against the Independence Township Board of Ecucation concerning the termination of a custodial employee who allegedly declined to provide a letter of support to be utilized in the defense of a head custodian who had been indicted for a felony. The Administrator finds no discernable nexus between the facts alleged and the exercise of any rights protected under the Act; no facts which would support the claim that the Board sought to dominate or interfere with the formation, existence or administration of an employee organization under §§ (a)(2),; and no evidence that the discharge in question was motivated by the signing or filing of an affidavit, petition or complaint or for giving any information or testimony under the Act pursuant to §§ (a)(4).

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 84-23, 10 NJPER 210 (¶15105 1984)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

71.226 72.323

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- DUP 84-023.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

D.U.P. NO. 84-23 1. D.U.P. NO. 84-23 STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION In the Matter of INDEPENDENCE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-84-11 INDEPENDENCE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. Appearances: For the Respondent David A. Wallace, attorney For the Charging Party John W. Davis, UniServ Representative, NJEA REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT On July 15, 1983, an Unfair Practice Charge was filed by the Independence Education Association ( A Association @ ) with the Public Employment Relations Commission ( A Commission @ ) alleging that the Independence Township Board of Education ( A Board @ ) was engaging in an unfair practice within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ( A Act @ ), specifically ' ' 5.4(a)(1), (2) and (4).1/ The Charge alleges that on or about May 2, 1983, Joseph Gentile ( A Gentile @ ), a custodial employee, was wrongly denied a promotional opportunity and was subsequently terminated because Gentile, on or about January 17, 1983, refused to provide a letter of support to be utilized in the defense of the Head Custodian who had been indicted for a felony while in the employ of the Board. 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.3/ The Commission = s rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.4/ For the reasons state below, it appears to the undersigned that the Commission = s complaint issuance standards have not been met. First, the undersigned does not perceive a nexus between the facts alleged and the exercise of any rights protected under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act. Secondly, Charging Party alleges a ' (a)(2) violation; however, it presents no facts which would support the claim that the Board sought to dominate or interfere with the formation, existence or administration of an employee organization. Finally, with respect to the Association = s ' (a)(4) claim, there is no evidence that Gentile was discharged for having signed or filed an affidavit, petition or complaint or for giving any information or testimony under this Act. The undersigned, on January 30, 1984, advised the Association that in the absence of the filing of a withdrawal request, or unless the Charge was amended to allege specific facts which would provide a basis for Charging Party = s assertion of protected activity, the undersigned would be inclined not to issue a complaint. Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, and there being no further proffers by the Association, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint herewith. BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS /s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator DATED: March 15, 1984 Trenton, New Jersey 1/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a) prohibits public employers, their representatives or agents from: A (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization. (4) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because he has signed or filed an affidavit, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under this act. @ 2/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) provides: A The commission shall have exclusive power as hereinafter provided to prevent anyone from engaging in any unfair practice . . . Whenever it is charged that anyone has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair practice, the commission, or any designated agent thereof, shall have authority to issue and cause to be served upon such party a complaint stating the specific unfair practice and including a notice of hearing containing the date and place of hearing before the commission or any designated agent thereof . . . @ 3/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. 4/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. ***** End of DUP 84-23 *****