D.U.P. NO. 84-16

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-83-239

JERSEY CITY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Richard C. Vaughan, attorney

For the Charging Party

Philip Feintuch, attorney

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

On March 28, 1983, the Jersey City Education Association ("Association") filed an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") alleging that the Jersey City Board of Education ("Board") violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act"), specifically §§ 5.4(a)(1), (2), (5), (6) and (7)1/ when it unilaterally circulated to its school principals certain information concerning allegedly proposed teacher salary guides.

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, 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/

The allegations of the Charging Party are as follows:

On or about March 9, 1983, the Jersey City Board of Education by its agent, its attorney, Richard C. Vaughan, released to the members of the School District or certain of them information which was not agreed to by the charging party and which purported to be Teacher Salary Guides that were not accepted by the Jersey City Education Association. The purpose of the release of this information was to undermine and raise doubts in the minds of the membership of the Jersey City Education Association as to the leadership of that organization. Certain of the members released this highly inflammatory and prejudicial information to the teachers, which is interpreted by the Association as being interference with the administration of the Jersey City Education Association. Additionally, the Jersey City Education Association interprets the actions of certain of the members as an attempt to coerce their subordinates (teachers) into accepting the Boards proposals. Additionally, all of the above is interpreted by the Association as a refusal to negotiate with the duly authorized representatives of the Jersey City Education Association and an attempt to directly negotiate with the membership at large.

Separate and apart from the above it is alleged that alternatively with this charge that on or about February 15, 1983 an agreement was entered into between the parties and the Board of Education has failed, refused and neglected to ratify such an agreement.

For the reasons stated below, it appears to the undersigned that the Commission's complaint issuance standards have not been met.

The Commission's rules state that an unfair practice charge shall contain inter alia:

A clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice, including, where known, the time and place of occurrence of the particular acts alleged and the names of respondent's agents or other representative by whom committed and a statement of the portion or portions of the Act alleged to have been violated. (Emphasis added)5/

Although the Association contends that the salary guide information, which was circulated while negotiations were in progress, was "inflammatory," "prejudicial" and intended to "undermine and raise doubts in the minds of the [Association's membership] as to the leadership of that organization," it has not submitted factual allegations to support these conclusionary statements which suggest unfair practices.

In matters involving allegations that a party's negotiations approach has been in bad faith, the Commission has declined to base its judgment upon the occurrence of isolated events and has instead focused upon the "totality of conduct" engaged in by a respondent. This standard was approved in State of New Jersey v. Council of N.J. State College Locals, NJSFT, AFT, AFL-CIO, 141 N.J. Super. 470 (App. Div. 1976).6/ In the instant case, the Association's factual statement fails to allege with sufficient specificity what "information" was "released" to employees of the Board, which District "members" circulated the "information," the manner of its dissemination, the timing of its dissemination and the context of its dissemination. Accordingly, there is insufficient factual material presented to support a claim of a §(a)(5) violation.7/ Similarly, there is insufficient factual material presented to support a claim of a §(a)(1), (2), (6) or (7) violation.8/

Accordingly, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	December 20, 1983

Trenton, New Jersey