H.E. NO. 85-3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of

SPOTSWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-84-19-35

SPOTSWOOD CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

________________________________

SPOTSWOOD CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CE-84-20-131

SPOTSWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Board

Golden, Shore, Zahn & Richmond, Esqs.

(John B. Wolf, of Counsel)

For the Association

Klausner & Hunter, Esqs.

(Stephen E. Klausner, of Counsel)

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ON

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge (CO-84-19-35) was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on July 25, 1983 by the Spotswood Cafeteria Employees Association ("Association") alleging that the Spotswood Board of Education ("Board") has engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of subsection 5.4(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-
Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act").1/ Subsequently, on March 14, 1984 the Board filed a charge against the Association (CE-84-20-131) alleging that the Association engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of subsections 5.4(b)(3), (4) and (5) of the Act.2/

Thereafter, on April 24, 1984, the Charges were consolidated and a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued. The hearing commenced on May 17, 1984 and resumed on May 18 and June 21, 1984. Further hearings are scheduled for July 24 and 25, 1984.

Prior to the third day of hearing the Association filed an amendment to CO-84-19-35 alleging a violation of 5.4(a)(6) and (7) of the Act.3/ At the hearing on June 21, the Board objected to the Amendment, and on June 26, it submitted a formal Motion to Dismiss the Amendment. As an alternative to the Motion to Dismiss the Board requested that it be given additional time to file an Answer to the Amendment.

The Association in the Amended Charge alleged that the parties had negotiated and ratified a new collective agreement, and it asserted that the Board in preparing the collective agreement excluded a work hours guarantee clause that had been included in the preceding agreement. The Association seeks to require the Board to sign an agreement which includes the alleged work hours clause. However, the Association did not allege any facts concerning an (a)(7) charge.

The Association's Amendment is essentially the antithesis of the Board's CE Charge. The Board in its Charge seeks to compel the Association to sign an agreement which does not include a work hours guarantee. The Board asserted that the Association had rejected a package offer which had included the work hours guarantee, and that it subsequently reached an agreement which did not include that clause.

The Board's primary objection to the Amendment seems to be that it will complicate and lengthen the processing of the matters already in hearing. The Association argued that the Amended Charge involves the same issues raised in the CE case, and that it would be pursued as a separate matter if dismissed herein.

Having considered the parties' positions regarding this matter the undersigned denies the Motion to Dismiss with regard to the (a)(6) allegation. First, the Amended Charge, on its face, appears to be timely, and second, it concerns the same issues raised in the CE Charge. It makes far more sense and provides for greater administrative efficiency to consolidate that matter with the present matters rather than to risk the need for a separate hearing on the same facts that will be litigated in CE-84-20-131. The undersigned, however, will grant the Board's request for additional time to file an amended answer.4/

However, the Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to the (a)(7) allegation. The Association failed to set forth any Commission rule or regulation alleged to have been violated.

ORDER

For the above stated reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1.	The 5.4(a)(7) allegation in the Amended Charge is dismissed.

2.	The Motion to Dismiss the 5.4(a)(6) allegation of the Amended Charge is denied.

/s/Arnold H. Zudick

Hearing Examiner

DATED:	July 12, 1984

Trenton, New Jersey