D.U.P. No. 2012-3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

In the Matter of

PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK

COMMISSION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-2011-374

PBA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT,

Charging Party.

SYNOPSIS

The Director of Unfair Practices dismisses an unfair practice charge filed by the PBA State Law Enforcement Unit against the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. The charge alleges that the Park Commission violated 5.4a(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the Act when the police chief issued a memorandum regarding sick leave procedures which allegedly violated the sick leave provision of the parties' collective negotiations agreement.

The Director finds that the parties have a good faith dispute concerning the proper interpretation of the memorandum and whether it runs afoul of the sick leave provision in the parties' agreement. The Director dismissed the charge pursuant to State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services), P.E.R.C. No. 84-148, 10 NJPER 419 (¶15191 1984), where the Commission held that it will not substitute its unfair practice jurisdiction for the parties' agreed-upon grievance procedure to resolve contract disputes.

D.U.P. No. 2012-3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

In the Matter of

PALISADES INTERSTATE PARK

COMMISSION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-2011-374

PBA STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent,

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General

(Geri Benedetto, Deputy Attorney General)

For the Charging Party,

Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys

(Stuart J. Alterman, of counsel)

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

On March 22, 2011 the PBA State Law Enforcement Unit (PBA SLEU) filed an unfair practice charge against the Palisades Interstate Park Commission (Park Commission). The charge alleges that on December 22, 2010, the Park Commission violated 5.4a(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act) when the police chief issued a memorandum regarding sick leave procedures which allegedly violated the sick leave provision of the parties' collective negotiations agreement. The Park Commission asserts that an alleged contract violation is not an unfair practice and that the charge should be dismissed.

The Commission has authority to issue a complaint where it appears that the Charging Party's allegations, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c; N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. The Commission has delegated that authority to me. Where the complaint issuance standard has not been met, I may decline to issue a complaint. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. Based upon the following, I find that the complaint issuance standard has not been met.

On December 22, 2010 Chief Parr issued a memorandum to all officers advising that any sick leave taken on December 31, 2010, January 1 or January 2, 2011 "shall require sufficient medical documentation, otherwise any sick leave will not be approved."

The sick leave provision of the parties' agreement, Article XXI, provides in pertinent part:

If the duration of the absence exceeds two (2) consecutive days, it will be necessary to report on every third day. Failure to report absences or abuse of sick leave privileges on the part of any employee may be cause for disciplinary action. A personal physician's certificate may be required to substantiate the request of sick leave but this requirement shall not be imposed on a basis inconsistent with Merit System Rules and Regulations.

ANALYSIS

In State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services), P.E.R.C. No. 84-148, 10 NJPER 419 (¶15191 1984), the Commission held that:

a mere breach of contract claim does not state a cause of action under subsection 5.4a(5) which may be litigated through unfair practice proceedings and instead parties must attempt to resolve such contract disputes through their negotiated grievance procedures. [10 NJPER at 421.]

It appears that the parties have a good faith dispute concerning the proper interpretation of the chief's memorandum and whether it runs afoul of the sick leave provision in the parties' agreement. The PBA SLEU argues that the memorandum, "should be interpreted to require an officer to advise the appointing authority of the intended use of sick time prior to the need [emphasis added]." By concession, the memorandum is subject to interpretation. The Commission will not substitute its unfair practice jurisdiction for the parties' agreed-upon grievance procedure to resolve contract disputes. Human Services. Furthermore, the PBA SLEU has not alleged that any officer was disciplined or denied sick leave for failing to provide medical documentation in advance of taking leave. I dismiss the a(5) allegation.

The charge contains no facts which, if true, would constitute an independent violation of 5.4a(1), or violations of 5.4a(2), (3), or (4). I also dismiss those allegations.

ORDER

The unfair practice charge is dismissed.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF REPRESENTATION

_________________________

Gayl R. Mazuco

Director of Unfair Practices

DATED:	August 19, 2011

Trenton, New Jersey

This decision may be appealed to the Commission pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3.

Any appeal is due by August 29, 2011.