D.U.P. NO. 93-44 1.
D.U.P. NO. 93-44
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
In the Matter of
EVESHAM TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
-and- Docket No. CO-93-298
EVESHAM TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATORS
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent,
Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys
(Alan R. Schmoll, of counsel)
For the Charging Party,
Lake & Schwartz, attorneys
(Robert M. Schwartz, of counsel)
REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT
On February 25, 1993, the Evesham Township Administrators Association filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission against the Evesham Township Board of Education. The charge alleges that the Board violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq ., specifically, subsections 5.4(a)(1), (3) and (5)1/ by failing to
1/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (3) Discriminating in
Footnote Continued on Next Page
place Elaine Daniel on the appropriate column of the salary guide, pursuant to the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
The Board asserts that this dispute is one involving contractual interpretation and, accordingly, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
In State of New Jersey (Dept. of Human Services) , P.E.R.C. No. 84-148, 10 NJPER 419 ( & 15191 1984), the Commission held that allegations setting forth at most a mere breach of contract do not warrant the exercise of the Commission's unfair practice jurisdiction. Here, the Association is merely asserting a breach of the parties' collective agreement agreement. Under Human Services , this cannot amount to an unfair practice under the Act. See also City of Brigantine, P.E.R.C. No. 92-123, 18 NJPER 357 ( & 23154 1992).
1/ Footnote Continued From Previous Page
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative."
Therefore, I find that the Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met and refuse to issue a complaint on the allegations of this charge. 2/ Accordingly, the charge is dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
Edmund G. Gerber, Director
DATED: June 28, 1993
Trenton, New Jersey
2/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. ***** End of DUP 93-44 ***** |