|
D.R. No. 2011-8
Synopsis:
The Deputy Director of Representation orders an election in a petition filed by the Ramsey Teachers Association to add clerical titles represented by the Ramsey Office Personnel Association to its unit of certificated employees. The Ramsey Board of Education did not consent to an election, arguing that the current unit structure has been in place for at least 30 years and should not be disturbed. It also contrasted its separate and recent negotiations with the two units. The Deputy Director found that prior contentious negotiations for a collective agreement between the Board and the Ramsey Teachers Association does not constitute a compelling circumstance warranting the rejection of the proposed consolidation.
PERC Citation:
D.R. No. 2011-8, 37 NJPER 124 (¶36 2011)
Appellate History:
Additional:
Miscellaneous:
NJPER Index:
15.121 15.18 32.83 33.21 34.15 34.31
Issues:
D.R. No. 2011-8 1.
D.R. No. 2011-8
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION
In the Matter of
RAMSEY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Public Employer,
-and-
RAMSEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Docket No. RO-2011-014
Petitioner,
-and-
RAMSEY OFFICE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor.
SYNOPSIS
The Deputy Director of Representation orders an election in a petition filed by the Ramsey Teachers Association to add clerical titles represented by the Ramsey Office Personnel Association to its unit of certificated employees. The Ramsey Board of Education did not consent to an election, arguing that the current unit structure has been in place for at least 30 years and should not be disturbed. It also contrasted its separate and recent negotiations with the two units. The Deputy Director found that prior contentious negotiations for a collective agreement between the Board and the Ramsey Teachers Association does not constitute a compelling circumstance warranting the rejection of the proposed consolidation.
D.R. No. 2011-8
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION
In the Matter of
RAMSEY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Public Employer,
-and-
RAMSEY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Docket No. RO-2011-014
Petitioner,
-and-
RAMSEY OFFICE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION,
Intervenor.
Appearances:
For the Public Employer,
Taylor, Whalen and Hybbeneth
(Garry M. Whalen, Consultant)
For the Petitioner,
Springstead and Maurice, attorneys
(Alfred F. Maurice, of counsel)
For the Intervenor,
Bucceri and Pincus, attorneys
(Gregory T. Syrek, of counsel)
DECISION
On September 24, 2010, the Ramsey Teachers Association (RTA) filed a representation petition seeking to add clerical titles represented by the Ramsey Office Personnel Association (ROPA) to its unit of certificated employees. The petition is supported by an adequate showing of interest. On October 19, 2010, the ROPA intervened in the petition, based upon its current collective negotiations agreement with the Ramsey Board of Education (Board), extending from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011. N.J.A.C. 19:11-2.7(b)(2). The ROPA will consent to an election.
The Board refuses to consent to an election. It argues that the current unit structure has been in place for at least 30 years and should not be disturbed. It also contrasts its separate and recent negotiations with the ROPA to those with the RTA.
We have conducted an administrative investigation into this matter to determine the facts. N.J.A.C. 19:1-2.2. On March 9, 2011, I wrote to the parties, advising of my tentative findings and inviting responses. On March 17, 2011, the Board filed a reply, reiterating its position. The disposition of the petition is properly based upon our administrative investigation. No substantial material facts are disputed. N.J.A.C. 19:11-2.2 and 2.6. Based upon the administrative investigation, I find these facts:
The RTA and the Board signed a collective negotiations agreement extending from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. The recognition clause provides that the RTA is the exclusive representative for all nonsupervisory certified personnel employed by the Board. Among the titles included in the RTA = s unit are classroom teachers, psychologists, guidance counselors, social workers, librarians, and nurses.
The recognition clause in the ROPA agreement extends to Board secretaries and office assistants.
The last round of negotiations between the Board and the RTA were long and contentious. Negotiations commenced in January 2007. The parties met five times to negotiate before the Board filed a Notice of Impasse on April 12, 2007. The parties met three times with a mediator before going to fact-finding. The fact-finder = s report and recommendations issued on February 2, 2009. The Board adopted the recommendations. The RTA initially rejected the recommendations. The parties reached an agreement in May, 2009.
During the 28 months of those negotiations, specifically on October 8 and November 12, 2007, regular school days that year1/, the school district closed after a majority of the Board = s teachers requested the days off. On other dates in that period, the RTA held demonstrations at Board meetings; both parties spoke to the press regarding the negotiations, and communicated their positions directly to parents. The RTA advised parents that until a settlement was reached, teachers would only fulfill their strict contractual requirements and that actions such as helping students before and after school, writing college letters of recommendation, meeting and corresponding with parents outside of contractual hours, and planning and chaperoning school trips and events would not be performed.
During the negotiations period, the RTA also filed and later withdrew two unfair practice charges against the Board.
The Board and the ROPA, by contrast, met five times and concluded their negotiations amicably. They agreed to suspend negotiations for 15 months while the Board focused on concluding its negotiations with the RTA. During the 15 month hiatus, the ROPA did not conduct any demonstrations, take any job actions, or criticize the Board at its public meetings. In negotiations for their predecessor agreement, the Board and the ROPA went through mediation, fact-finding, and super conciliation before signing an agreement. ANALYSIS The Commission is charged with determining the appropriate unit for negotiations. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6(d). N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 requires that negotiations units be defined "with due regard for the community of interest among the employees concerned." The New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed the Commission's policy favoring broad-based, employer-wide negotiations units rather than small units of separate occupational groups. Broad-based units streamline negotiations by reducing the potential for such problems as "competing demands, whipsawing and continuous negotiations..." that result from negotiating with numerous smaller units. State of New Jersey and Prof. Assn. of N.J. Bd. of Ed., 64 N.J. 231 (1974), aff'g P.E.R.C. No. 68, NJPER Supp. 273, 275 ( & 68 1972).
The Commission has long held that broad-based units of education employees -- both units of all school support staff employees and units combining support staff and professional staff -- are appropriate. West Milford Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 56 (1971); Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-124, 10 NJPER 272 ( & 15134 1984). In Piscataway, the Commission wrote:
When a dispute concerning the propriety of including one or more groups of supportive staff with teachers and professional school district employees has arisen, the Commission since 1969 has consistently found, . . . that teachers and supportive staff have a community of interest stemming from such factors as their shared goals, the central authority controlling their working conditions, and their common working facilities and environment and that this community of interest generally warrants giving teachers and supportive staff the opportunity to choose a unified representative in a single unit if they so desire. See West Milford Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 56 (1971). In the Commission's judgment, affording teachers and supportive staff such an opportunity promotes labor stability since unified employee representation may permit negotiations with an already centralized and unified employer to proceed more smoothly. State of New Jersey and Professional Assn of N.J. Dept. of Ed., 64 N.J. 231 (1974).
[Id., 10 NJPER at 274]
The Commission has generally given teachers and support staff employees the opportunity to choose unified representation in a single unit based upon their community of interest, except where certain compelling circumstances may justify continuing separate units. Englewood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 82-25, 7 NJPER 516 ( & 12229 1981).
Englewood was not decided solely upon the basis of a long history of negotiations in separate units but on a combination of factors, including the strenuous objection of the incumbent organization. In numerous decisions since Englewood, the Commission has balanced several factors in deciding whether to permit employees to vote on whether they wish to have a unified negotiations unit.
Shortly after Englewood, in Glen Rock Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 83-64, 9 NJPER 17 ( & 14008 1982), the Commission reversed a Director of Representation decision finding that the history of negotiations in separate units mandated dismissal of a petition to consolidate units. The Commission found that the Director erred in relying exclusively on the negotiations history and remanded the matter for hearing. On remand, the hearing officer also found that the ten-year history of separate negotiations units precluded consolidating the units. The Commission again reversed, finding that negotiations history alone will not control unit structure in the face of the incumbent's support for consolidation. Glen Rock Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-125, 10 NJPER 275 ( & 15135 1984).
Simultaneous with Glen Rock, the Commission issued five other decisions clarifying the applicability of Englewood - Piscataway Bd. of Ed., Bordentown Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-126, 10 NJPER 276 ( & 15136 1984), aff'd App. Div. Dkt. No. A-4503-83T6 (4/9/85); Bergen Cty. Vocational Schools Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-127, 10 NJPER 279 ( & 15137 1984); Freehold Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-128, 10 NJPER 280 ( & 15138 1984); and Barrington Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-129, 10 NJPER 282 ( & 15139 1984). In each of those cases, the Commission found that giving employees a chance to choose unified representation in a consolidated unit was appropriate even where there had been a lengthy negotiations history of separate support staff units, if the supportive staff unit welcomes, rather than vigorously opposes, the proposed consolidated unit and the existing unit is not the subject of a longstanding certification.2/ The Commission noted in Piscataway:
. . . the focus of the Englewood litigation was on the placement of [custodians represented by an AFL-CIO affiliate]. . . . Englewood may not be read as rejecting giving employees the opportunity to choose unified representation when the majority representatives of these units favor, rather than oppose, that course.
[Id., 10 NJPER at 275]
Since Piscataway, we have consistently found that a combined unit of professional employees and support staff employees is appropriate, absent compelling circumstances, despite the same objection raised here -- given the previous collective negotiations history with separate support and professional units and a significant period of stable labor relations, the separate support and professional units should not be consolidated. See West Amwell Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 93-21, 19 NJPER 254 ( & 24126 1993)(Director ordered election in petition to add cafeteria personnel, custodial/maintenance personnel, secretaries and aides to existing unit of certificated personnel); Essex Cty. Voc. Tech. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 93-8, 19 NJPER 32 ( & 24015 1992)(Director ordered election in petition to add secretaries, aides, and clerks to existing unit of certificated personnel, finding no compelling circumstances that would negate the appropriateness of a broad-based consolidated unit); Bloomfield Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 92-10, 18 NJPER 77 ( & 23033 1992); Mountainside Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 92-20, 18 NJPER 158 ( & 23074 1992); Orange Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 92-6, 18 NJPER 2 ( & 23001 1991)(Director ordered election in petition to add secretaries, custodial/maintenance personnel, and paraprofessionals into existing unit of certificated personnel, finding no compelling circumstances that would negate the appropriateness of a broad- based consolidated unit); Deptford Tp. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 90- 31, 16 NJPER 370 ( & 21146 1990); Cherry Hill Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 90-18, 16 NJPER 107 ( & 21041 1990)(Director found petition to add support staff employees to a teachers' unit appropriate despite twenty-year history of stable negotiations in separate units); North Bergen Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 89-028, 15 NJPER 240 ( & 20098 1989) ; Lyndhurst Tp. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 89-7, 15 NJPER 86 ( & 20036 1988); Barnegat Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 88-31, 14 NJPER 160 ( & 19065 1988), request for rev. den. P.E.R.C. No. 88-79, 14 NJPER 223 ( & 19081 1988), mot. for recon. den. P.E.R.C. No. 88-91, 14 NJPER 256 ( & 19096 1988) ; North Hanover Tp. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 88-30, 14 NJPER 158 ( & 19064 1988); Hamilton Tp. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 88-19, 14 NJPER 35 ( & 19013 1987).
Considering the circumstances of this case, I find that the petitioned-for consolidated unit is appropriate. Both the RTA and the ROPA have indicated their consent to a secret ballot election. A contentious negotiations for a collective agreement does not constitute a compelling circumstance warranting the rejection of the proposed consolidation. Although the most recent negotiations between the Board and the ROPA were amicable, negotiations were prolonged for the predecessor agreement, requiring mediation, fact-finding, and super conciliation. ORDER I order that an election be conducted among the employees in the petitioned-for unit and that a professional option be conducted among employees in the existing professional unit, as follows:
Included: Secretaries in the Business Office, Superintendent = s Office, and Guidance Department; Secretaries to all Principals and Assistant Principals, Ten Month Office Assistants, Twelve Month Office Assistants, Part-time Office Assistants and Part-time Hourly Office Assistants to be added to the existing unit of Classroom Teachers, Nurses, Psychologists, Guidance Counselors, Speech Correctionists, Work Study Coordinators, Social Workers, Reading Specialists, Librarians, Learning Disability Specialists, Adaptive Physical Education Instructors, Summer School Teachers, Basic Skills Instructors and Student Assistance Counselors employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
Excluded: Executive Secretary I, Executive Secretary II, Executive Secretary to the Business Administrator/Board Secretary, Payroll Manager/Assistant Bookkeeper, Bookkeeper/Computer Operator and all others employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
The election shall be conducted in accordance with the Commission's rules, as follows:
Two voting groups are established for purposes of this election:
Voting Unit 1 - Included: Secretaries in the Business Office, Superintendent = s Office, and Guidance Department; Secretaries to all Principals and Assistant Principals, Ten Month Office Assistants, Twelve Month Office Assistants, Part-time Office Assistants and Part-time Hourly Office Assistants employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
Excluded: Managerial executives, confidential employees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act; Executive Secretary I, Executive Secretary II, Executive Secretary to the Business Administrator/Board Secretary, Payroll Manager/Assistant Bookkeeper, Bookkeeper/Computer Operator, professional employees, craft employees, police, casual employees and all others employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
Voting Unit 2 - Included: Classroom Teachers, Nurses, Psychologists, Guidance Counselors, Speech Correctionists, Work Study Coordinators, Social Workers, Reading Specialists, Librarians, Learning Disability Specialists, Adaptive Physical Education Instructors, Summer School Teachers, Basic Skills Instructors and Student Assistance Counselors employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
Excluded: Managerial executives, confidential employees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act; non-professional employees, craft employees, police, casual employees, and all others employed by the Ramsey Board of Education.
Professional employees (Voting Unit 2) shall vote on whether they wish to be included in a unit with non-professional employees.
Nonprofessional employees (Voting Unit 1 -- secretaries and office assistants) shall vote on whether they wish to be represented in collective negotiations by the Ramsey Teachers Association or the Ramsey Office Personnel Association, or whether they wish to be unrepresented.
If a majority of voting professional employees votes for inclusion in a unit with non-professional employees and a majority of the voting non-professional employees votes for representation by the Ramsey Teachers Association, then the Ramsey Teachers Association will represent both groups in one unit.
If a majority of voting professional employees (Voting Unit 2) does not vote for inclusion in a unit with non-professional employees but a majority of voting non-professional employees (Voting Unit 1) vote for representation by the Ramsey Teachers Association, then the Ramsey Teachers Association will represent the non-professional employees in a separate unit.
If a majority of voting non-professional employees (Voting Unit 1) vote for representation by the Ramsey Office Personnel Association, then the Ramsey Office Personnel Association will represent the non-professional employees in a separate unit.
If a majority of voting non-professional employees (Voting Unit 1) votes in favor of no representation, then Voting Unit 1 will not be represented by any organization for purposes of collective negotiations and a certification of results shall issue.
The election will be conducted by mail ballot. Employees described in the voting units who were on the payroll during the pay period immediately preceding the date of this decision shall be eligible to vote in the election, including employees who did not work during that period because they were out ill, on vacation or temporarily laid off, including those in the military service. Ineligible to vote are employees who resigned or were discharged for cause since the designated payroll period and who have not been rehired or reinstated before the election date.
Ballots will be mailed to eligible voters on April 13, 2011. Ballots shall be returned to the Commission post office box by 9:00 a.m. on May 4, 2011. At that time they shall be collected and transported to a locked room in our Trenton Offices, where they will be stored until the ballot count on May 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in our Trenton Offices.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:11-10.1, the Board is directed to file with us an eligibility list consisting of an alphabetical listing of the names of all eligible voters in the units described above, together with their last known mailing addresses and job titles. In order to be timely filed, the eligibility list must be received by no later than April 1, 2011. A copy of the eligibility list shall also be simultaneously provided to the RTA and the ROPA with a statement of service filed with us. We shall not grant an extension of time within which to file the eligibility list except in extraordinary circumstances.
BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION
_____________________________
Jonathan L. Roth
Deputy Director of Representation
Dated: March 25, 2011
Trenton, New Jersey
A request for review of this decision by the Commission may be filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:11-8.1. Any request for review must comply with the requirements contained in N.J.A.C. 19:11-8.3.
Any request for review is due by April 4, 2011.
1/ On these dates, Ramsey schools would normally be closed in observance of Columbus Day and Veterans Day. In that year however, they were scheduled school days in Ramsey.
2/ In Bergen, the Commission found a five-year history would not control where the incumbent support staff representative did not oppose unification. In Freehold, the Commission found that the ten-year history of separate representation for secretaries did not control where the incumbent support staff representative did not oppose unification. In Barrington, the Commission found that a history of more than ten years of separate representation for secretaries did not control where the incumbent support staff representative did not oppose unification.
***** End of DR 2011-008 ***** |
|