The unfair practice charges were accompanied by a joint application for interim relief seeking an order requiring the Borough to provide the plan documents from the new carrier, and requiring the Borough to transfer back to the former carrier while the Unions study the new plan documents to determine whether there would be a change in the level of benefits.

To accomodate the needs of the parties I conducted a telephone conference call on Janaury 29, 1996 at which time the parties argued in support of their respective positions.

Both parties are aware of the standards that have been developed by the Commission for evaluating interim relief requests. These standards are similar to those applied by the Courts when

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. (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization. (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."

Prior to January 1, 1996, the Borough's health insurance was provided through a self insurance fund administered by "IDA". The Borough concedes that on or about January 1 it unilaterally switched to a larger self insurance fund also administered by IDA. The Borough argued there was no change in the level of benefits, but it conceded that it was required to negotiate if there were changes, and would be responsible for any difference in coverage. The Borough further conceded that the Unions were entitled to a copy of the plan documents.

The Unions did not allege they were currently aware of any changes in benefits, but argued that the Borough should be required to transfer back to the previous fund while that determination was being made. No evidence was available, however, to show 1) that the Borough would be allowed to reenter the prior fund and/or then be

2/ Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982); Tp. of Stafford, P.E.R.C. No. 76-9, 1 NJPER 59 (1975); State of New Jersey (Stockton State College) , P.E.R.C. No. 76-6, 1 NJPER 41 (1975); Tp. of Little Egg Harbor , P.E.R.C. No. 94, 1 NJPER 36 (1975).

There is a substantial likelihood that the Unions would establish at a plenary hearing that the Borough violated the Act regarding the plan documents. The failure or refusal to provide information relevant to contract administration, such as the health plan documents, is a refusal to negotiate in good faith. City of Atlantic City, P.E.R.C. No. 89-56, 15 NJPER 11, ( & 20003 1988); Downe Tp. Bd. Ed. , P.E.R.C. No. 86-66, 12 NJPER 3 ( & 17002 1985); Shrewsbery Bd. Ed. , P.E.R.C. No. 81-119, 7 NJPER 235 ( & 12105 1981). If that situation were to persist it could irreparably affect the administration of the employees health plan. Since the Borough admits it must provide the plan documents, and since there is no harm to the Borough for providing the documents, I am requiring they be provided consistent with the below ORDER.

The request by the Unions that the Borough be required to transfer back to the prior fund, however, is denied. The Borough may suffer substantial penalties for transferring between funds and there is insufficient evidence to allow me to properly weigh the harms in this case.