D.U.P. NO. 82-30

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

BRICK TOWNSHIP,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-81-238

OCEAN COUNCIL #12,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Russo & Courtney, attorneys

(Joseph L. Foster, of counsel)

For the Charging Party

Steven Weissman, attorney

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on February 11, 1981 and amended on July 15, 1981 by Ocean Council #12 (the "Charging Party") against Brick Township (the "Respondent") alleging that the Respondent was engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (the "Act").

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.1/ 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. This 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.2/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.3/

For the following reasons, the undersigned has determined that the Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met with respect to certain of the allegations.

Charging Party alleges that the Respondent has "pursued a continued pattern of harassment" against a particular employee4/ and has subjected her to discipline and public embarrassment. A grievance generated by the Charging Party on the employee's behalf concerning her suspension "was processed improperly through the contractual grievance procedure." Additionally, Charging Party alleges that the Respondent denied the employee's request for representation by the Charging Party at a meeting conducted by the Respondent "to discuss her suspension" and that the Respondent threatened a second suspension when the employee requested such representation. A second grievance filed by the Charging Party relating to the alleged denial of representation and accompanying threat was "improperly processed."

The undersigned declines to issue a complaint with respect to those allegations contesting the basis of the Respondent's judgment to discipline the employee. The Charging Party does not allege that the employee was suspended as a result of any protected activity on her part, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 34:13A-5.3, on behalf of Charging Party. Further, the Charging Party has not specifically identified the allegedly "improper" manner by which its two grievances were processed, and the undersigned cannot discern a basis for this claim through review of the appended exhibits to the charge.

Accordingly, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint for the purpose of litigating the facts that the Respondent's determination to discipline the employee herein violated the Act and that the employer's "improper" grievance processing constituted a violation of the Act.5/

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	March 23, 1982

Trenton, New Jersey