D.U.P. NO. 83-3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

LACEY TOWNSHIP,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-83-9

FRANCIS J. CLANCY,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on August 9, 1982, by Francis J. Clancy (the "Charging Party") against Lacey Township (the "Respondent") alleging that the Respondent was engaging in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (the "Act").

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.1/ 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 of the charging party, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act.2/ The Commission's rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.3/

For the reasons stated below the undersigned has determined 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 representatives by whom committed and a statement of the portion or portions of the Act alleged to have been violated. (Emphasis added)4/

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the Charging Party to allege the specific portion(s) of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a) and/or (b), which form the basis of the alleged statutory violation. The undersigned has determined that in the absence of such allegations, a complaint may not issue.5/

Subsequent to the filing of the Unfair Practice Charge, by letter dated August 12, 1982, the undersigned informed the Charging Party that the Charge could not be processed further unless it was amended, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.5, to correct its deficiencies.

On September 9, 1982, Charging Party was again apprised that it did not appear that the Township's decision not to reemploy him was in response to his exercise of protected rights and that the Commission was unable to ascertain which portions of the Act might form the basis of a complaint. The undersigned has not received a reply to either the August 12 or the September 9, 1982 letters. The Charge has not been amended, as requested.

Accordingly, the Charge has not been perfected. Further, the undersigned has reviewed the allegations contained in the "Statement of Charge" and cannot discern the nexus between the factual allegations and any violation of the Act as enumerated in the subsections of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a) or (b).

Therefore, as the Charge is deficient the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	September 30, 1982

Trenton, New Jersey