Back

I.R. No. 92-18

Synopsis:

A Commission Designee declines to restrain an arbitration concerning the alleged failure of the Newark Board of Education to follow contractual procedures for promotion. OPEIU, Local 32 originally filed a grievance seeking to arbitrate the Newark Board of Education's decision concerning a promotion. The Union now conceeds that promotional decisions are not negotiable. Accordingly, the arbitration will only concern the Board's alleged failure to follow the contract's procedure for promotion. This matter appears to be arbitrable.

PERC Citation:

I.R. No. 92-18, 18 NJPER 410 (¶23189 1992)

Appellate History:



Additional:



Miscellaneous:



NJPER Index:

43.311 74.3761

Issues:

    DecisionsWordPerfectPDF
    NJ PERC:.IR 92 18.wpd - IR 92 18.wpd
    IR 92-018.pdf - IR 92-018.pdf

    Appellate Division:

    Supreme Court:



    I.R. NO. 92-18 1.
    I.R. NO. 92-18
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

    In the Matter of

    NEWARK BOARD OF EDUCATION,

    Petitioner,

    -and- Docket No. SN-92-80

    OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
    INTERNATIONAL UNION,

    Respondent.

    Appearances:

    For the Petitioner
    Marvin L. Comick, General Counsel
    (Carolyn Ryan Reed, of counsel)

    For the Respondent
    Courter, Kobert, Laufer, Purcell & Cohen, attorneys
    (Fredrick M. Knapp, of counsel)

    INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

    On March 19, 1992, Newark Board of Education filed an Application for Interim Relief with the Public Employment Relations Commission requesting a restraint of an arbitrator's decision in a matter brought by OPEIU, Local 32, AFL-CIO. The arbitration concerned the filling of a position, Assistant Chief Accountant, of the Board.

    The City claimed the Union is seeking to arbitrate its decision concerning a promotion but such a decision is not arbitrable. It is a managerial prerogative.


    The Union admits that the original grievance did make such a request but states that the issue before the arbitrator was limited to the alleged failure of the Board to follow the contract's procedure for promotion.

    The grievance was brought on behalf of Mr. Andrew Ciriaco. Mr. Ciriaco was not appointed to the position although he applied for it. Mr. Ciriaco contends that the Board did not follow the contractual provisions for filling this position and did not provide Mr. Ciriaco a statement as to why he was not promoted, pursuant to the contract.

    The Application to restrain the arbitrator's decision is denied. The issues now before the arbitrator appear to be arbitrable. The Commission will not restrain an arbitration decision on the mere speculation that an arbitrator might exceed his or her authority.

    The Scope of Negotiation Petition in this matter will go forward to the Commission.

    Edmund G. Gerber
    Commission Designee

    DATED: Trenton, New Jersey
    April 30, 1992

    ***** End of IR 92-18 *****