D.U.P. NO. 84-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

CITY OF ELIZABETH

(ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT),

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-84-32

PATRICK J. MALONEY,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

On October 21, 1983, an Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") by Patrick J. Maloney ("Charging Party") alleging that the City of Elizabeth ("City") had engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act"), specifically § 5.4(a)(1) and (3).1/

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.2/ 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.3/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.4/

For the reasons stated below, it appears to the undersigned that the allegations described herein do not constitute unfair practices which are within the jurisdiction of the Commission to review.

Charging Party has alleged that the City declined to compute his entitlement to certain vacation pay and holiday pay benefits upon severance in the same manner that benefits have been computed for other police officers who have severed their employment with the City.

Charging Party has not proffered any specific facts which would establish a nexus between a past or current union activity and the City's actions. Moreover, there is no direct statutory entitlement under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 to the receipt of severance pay as a "right" arising out of the Act.

Accordingly, with respect to the allegations of a violation of §§ 5.4(a)(1) and (3), the undersigned notes that Charging Party has not alleged that the City discriminated against him due to his exercise of any activity that is protected by the Act or that it has interfered with protected rights.

On December 20, 1983, Charging Party was advised that in the absence of allegations which would meet the Commission's complaint issuance standard pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.5, the undersigned would issue a decision declining to issue a complaint. Charging Party has not sought to amend the charge.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint herein.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	March 8, 1984

Trenton, New Jersey