H.E. No. 95-18

Synopsis:

A Hearing Examiner recommends that the Commission find that the charge filed by the Association moot and dismiss the unfair practice. The Association originally filed an application for interim relief alleging that the Board unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment by refusing to advance unit members to the next step of the salary guide during the negotiations for a successor to the recently expired collective negotiations agreement. The application was granted and the Board was ordered to pay the increments. The Board complied with the Order and the increments were paid.

A Hearing Examiner's Recommended Report and Decision is not a final administrative determination of the Public Employment Relations Commission. The case is transferred to the Commission which reviews the Recommended Report and Decision, any exceptions thereto filed by the parties, and the record, and issues a decision which may adopt, reject or modify the Hearing Examiner's findings of fact and/or conclusions of law.

PERC Citation:

H.E. No. 95-18, 25 NJPER 204 (¶30094 1995)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

43.114 71.112 72.641

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	. - HE 95 18.wpd	- HE 95-018.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

H.E. No. 95-18 1. H.E. NO. 95-18 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of EVESHAM TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-95-30 EVESHAM TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. Appearances: For the Respondent, Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys (Alan R. Schmoll, of counsel) For the Charging Party, Selikoff & Cohen, attorneys (Steven R. Cohen, of counsel) HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION On October 5, 1994, the Evesham Township Education Association filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission alleging that the Evesham Township Board of Education engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1), (5) and (7).1/ The Association alleges 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. (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. (7) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission." that during negotiations for a successor agreement to the recently expired 1992-1994 agreement, the Board unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment by refusing to advance unit members to the next step of the 1993-1994 salary guide as of July 1, 1994. The Association filed an application for interim relief. The application was granted (I.R. No. 95-10, 21 NJPER 3 (& 26001 1995) and the Board was ordered to pay salary increments. The Board has complied with the order and paid the salary increment. It is apparent that this dispute is resolved and the charge is moot. The Commission will not exercise its judgment in moot disputes. Delran Tp. B/E, P.E.R.C. No. 95-17, 20 NJPER 379 ( & 25191 1994); Rutgers University , P.E.R.C. No. 88-1, 13 NJPER 631 ( & 18235 1985) aff'd App. Div. Dkt No. A-174-87T7 (11/23/88); Matawan Aberdeen Reg. Schl. Dist., P.E.R.C. No. 88-52, 14 NJPER 57 (& 19019 1987). Accordingly, I recommend the Commission find the matter moot and dismiss the unfair practice charge. Edmund G. Gerber Hearing Examiner Dated: February 16, 1995 Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of HE 95-18 *****