D.U.P. NO. 94-49 1.
D.U.P. NO. 94-49
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
In the Matter of
TOWNSHIP OF ORANGE AND
ORANGE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE
BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION,
Respondents,
-and- Docket No. CI-94-57
NORA C. WILLIAMS,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent - Township of Orange,
Thomas J. Morrison, III, Administrator
For the Respondent - OMEBA,
Alma Clay, President
For the Charging Party,
Nora C. Williams, pro se
REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT
On March 25, 1994, Nora Williams filed an unfair practice charge against the Township of Orange and the Orange Municipal Employee Benevolent Association, alleging violations of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq .; specifically, subsections 5.4(a)(7)1/ and 5.4(b)(5). 2/
1/ This subsection prohibits public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(7) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission."
2/ This subsection prohibits employee organizations, their representatives or agents from: "(5) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission."
Specifically, Williams alleges that the OMEBA failed to follow its grievance procedure when it filed a grievance against her on behalf of certain of its unit members who are her subordinates. Williams also alleges that the Township's subsequent disciplinary action taken against her was "unfair" because it was based upon information presented by the OMEBA during the processing of this grievance against her.
It is apparent that Williams is not represented by the OMEBA; therefore, not covered by the terms of the negotiated agreement between the OMEBA and the Township. As an individual who is not represented by the OMEBA, Williams' lacks standing to allege that the contractual grievance procedure was not followed. Normally, only the parties to an agreement, in this case the OMEBA and the Township, have standing to contest the application or interpretation of a provision in a negotiated agreement. N.J. Turnpike Authority, P.E.R.C. No. 81-64, 6 NJPER 560 ( & 11284 1980), aff'd App. Div. Dkt. No. A-1213-80T2.
Further, Williams' allegation against the Township is not based upon her involvement in activities protected under the Act, e.g . filing grievances or actively participating in collective organization and negotiations or declining to engage in such activities. Without more, these allegations do not meet the Commission's complaint issuance standard ( N.J.A.C . 19:14-2.1) and I am precluded from issuing a complaint based upon the mere assertion that the Township's actions toward you were "unfair."
The Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met. Accordingly, I decline to issue a complaint on the allegations of this charge. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. The charge is dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR
OF UNFAIR PRACTICES
Edmund G. Gerber, Director
DATED: June 7, 1994
Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of DUP 94-49 ***** |