D.R. NO. 83-14

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

CITY OF TRENTON,

Public Employer,

-and-	Docket No. CU-82-60

PBA LOCAL #11,

Petitioner,

-and-

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,

COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,

AFL-CIO, LOCALS NO. 2281 & 2286,

Intervenors.

Appearances:

For the Public Employer,

Katz, Bitterman & Dougherty

(Michael Bitterman, of counsel)

For the Petitioner,

Strauss, Wills, O'Neil & Voorhees

(G. Robert Wills, of Counsel)

For the Intervenor

Carlton Steger, Representative

DECISION

On February 22, 1982, a Petition for Clarification of Unit was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") by Policemen's Benevolent Association, Local No.11 (the "PBA") raising a question concerning the composition of a collective negotiations unit of police employees of the City of Trenton (the "City"), which the PBA represents. The PBA seeks the inclusion of employees in the titles of Senior Engineer, Garage Foreman, and Supervisor of Police and Fire Signal Systems in its police employee unit. The employees are currently represented in collective negotiations units of non-police personnel represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Locals 2281 and 2286 ("AFSCME").

The PBA argues that the employees in these three job titles, who work in the police garage of the City of Trenton, are functioning as police employees and therefore should be removed from the AFSCME units and placed in the police unit represented by the PBA. AFSCME and the City dispute this claim.

The undersigned has caused an administrative investigation to be conducted into the matters and allegations concerning the Petition.

On the basis of the administrative investigation, the undersigned finds and determines as follows:

1. The City of Trenton is a public employer within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act'), is the employer of the employees who are functioning in the job titles which are the subject of this petition and is subject to the provisions of the Act.

2. PBA Local No.11 and AFSCME Locals No. 2281 and 2286 are employee representatives within the meaning of the Act and are subject to its provisions. The PBA is currently the exclusive representative of all uniformed and non-uniformed patrolmen and patrolmen/detectives employed by the City in its Division of Police but excluding sergeants, lieutenants, captains and deputy chiefs.

AFSCME Local No. 2281 is currently the exclusive representative of all blue and white collar supervisors within the meaning of the Act employed by the City. AFSCME Local No.2286 is currently the exclusive representative of all non-
supervisory blue and white collar employees of the City.

3. The PBA seeks to add the job titles of Senior Engineer, Garage Foreman, and Supervisor of Police and Fire Signal Systems to its collective negotiations unit. The employees in the petitioned-for job titles are employed at the City of Trenton Police Garage and are represented by AFSCME Local No. 2281 and 2286.

4. The City and AFSCME oppose the PBA's Petition, arguing that the employees in the petitioned-for job titles are not police employees, are currently represented by AFSCME, and are covered by collective negotiations agreements with the City expiring December 31, 1982.

5. On April 2, 1982, the assigned Commission staff agent convened an informal conference among the parties. At the conference, and by letter of April 20, 1982, the Commission staff agent supplied the PBA with copies of pertinent Commission decisions.

The issue placed in dispute by the parties requires the undersigned to determine whether the employees in the petitioned-
for job titles are statutory police employees or render police services.

The general issue of police identification was examined by the undersigned in In re City of Newark, D.R. No. 81-18, 7 NJPER 3 (¶ 12002 1980) ("Newark I"), and In re City of Newark, D.R. No. 81-42, 7 NJPER 310 (¶ 12135 1981) ("Newark II").

In Newark I, the undersigned noted that in 1977, the Legislature has amended the Act to provide for compulsory interest arbitration in police and fire departments.1/ The Act had previously addressed police employees solely in the context of their representational rights by requiring, at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, that "policemen" could not be represented by employee organizations which represented non-policemen. The undersigned further pointed out that the courts and the Commission were called upon to define the term "policemen" which was not defined specifically in § 5.3.

The undersigned, after noting that the Commission had found that the definition of the term "policemen" in § 5.3 was specifically limited to those employees with statutory police powers,2/ determined that the Police and Fire Compulsory Interest Arbitration Act was not limited solely to those employees who have been statutorily vested with the police powers of arrest, apprehension, and detection, but was applicable as well to those police department employees who perform police services. Accordingly, an examination of the job functions of the disputed titles was undertaken in order to determine whether the employees functioning in the disputed titles performed police services which are an integral element of the law enforcement process.

In Newark I, the undersigned determined that communications linemen, who are responsible for inspection, repair, construction, and maintenance of electrical lines and other related equipment in the department's communication system were not police with statutory police powers, nor were they engaged in rendering police services. Similarly, in Newark II, the undersigned found that the Police Signal System Superintendent and the Chief Communications Officer were not statutory police and not engaged in rendering police services. In both Newark I and II, the undersigned removed from the existing negotiations units those employees who neither had the statutory police powers of detection, apprehension or arrest nor were engaged in rendering police services which would qualify them for coverage under the impasse procedures of the interest arbitration statute.

In the instant matter, the job functions of the Supervisor of Police and Fire Signal Systems and Senior Engineer, which involve communications electronics, would appear to be similar, if not identical to the positions noted in Newark I and II.

In addition, it appears to the undersigned that the position of Garage Foreman, the functions of which are essentially related to automobile repairs, is not involved in the performance of police services which are an integral element of the law enforcement process.

Therefore, for the above reasons, it appears to the undersigned that the employees in the positions of Senior Engineer, Garage Foreman, and Supervisor of Police and Fire Signal System are not police employees within the meaning of the Act and should not be placed in a collective negotiations unit represented by the PBA.3/ On July 12, 1982, upon receipt of the undersigned's preliminary analysis of the above factual and legal issues pertaining to this matter, the PBA requested that the undersigned "merge" the instant matter with a second clarification of unit petition it has filed for the purposes of an evidentiary hearing. The PBA, however, although provided with the opportunity, has not raise substantial and material factual issues relating to the employment of the instant personnel which would distinguish this matter from the factual analysis in the Newark cases. Accordingly, a factual evidentiary hearing is not warranted in this matter, nor would consideration of this matter in conjunction with the factual issues affecting other types of personnel facilitate administrative review or promote administrative economy. Accordingly, the PBA's request is denied.4/

For the reasons cited above, the undersigned determines that the PBA unit may not include employees in the titles of Senior Engineer, Garage Foreman, and Supervisor of Police and Fire Signal Systems.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF REPRESENTATION

__________________________

Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED: September 30, 1982

Trenton, New Jersey