D.U.P. NO. 84-25

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-84-162

LOCAL 195, IFPTE,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on December 19, 1983, by Local 195, IFPTE ("Charging Party") against the State of New Jersey ("Respondent") alleging that the Respondent engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-
Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1), (3) and (5).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. The 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 and that formal proceedings in respect thereto should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues.3/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.4/

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned has determined that the Commission's complaint issuance standards have not been met.

The Charging Party's statement of facts, in its entirety, states the following:

On or about December 13, 1983, the Division of Law and Public Safety transferred Dennis Smith, a shop steward of Local 195, despite the fact that there were other employees available to make said transfer.

Although the Charging Party has alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1), (3) and (5), it has not identified the rights under the Act which have arguably been interfered with, its statement of facts does not allege facts supportive of a claim that the employer was motivated to discriminate against the transferred employee due to his exercise of any protected activities as set forth in the Act, and Charging Party has not identified any rule governing working conditions or any contractual provision in its collective negotiations agreement respecting superseniority rights.

The Charging Party has twice been provided the opportunity to review its Charge and to present additional materials in support of its allegations. The undersigned does not find that shop steward superseniority in terms of transfer is a protected right under the Act. See In re State of New Jersey v. Local 195, 88 N.J. 393 (1982).

Accordingly, inasmuch as the Charging Party has failed to posit any nexus between the employer's actions and the employee's exercise of any rights under the Act, and failed to supply any additional information to support a factual allegation of employer anti-union animus or a refusal to negotiate in good faith, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	March 16, 1984

Trenton, New Jersey