H.E. NO. 85-24

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of

TOWNSHIP OF LACEY,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-84-289-38

LACEY TOWNSHIP P.B.A. 238,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Gilmore & Monahan

(Terry F. Brady, of counsel)

For the Charging Party

Citta, Holzapfel & Citta

(James W. Holzapfel, of counsel)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On April 19, 1984, the Lacey Township P.B.A. Local 238 ("Local 238") filed an Unfair Practice Charge against the Township of Lacey ("Township"). The charge alleges that the Township violated subsection 5.4(a)(5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act"). Local 238 alleges specifically that the Township unilaterally changed negotiable terms and conditions of employment when on January 3, 1984, the Police Chief issued seven work orders2/ concerning vacation time and personal leave days which contravened existing contractual rights,3/ and police department rules.4/

On August 30, 1984, the Administrator of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. The Township filed its answer on September 13, 1984, in which it admitted that the Township Police Chief issued seven orders dealing with vacation time and personal leave. However, it maintains that these orders concern non-negotiable management prerogatives and that therefore the Township has not violated the Act.

Subsequent to a prehearing conference held September 17, 1984, the Township filed its motion for summary judgment accompanied by supporting documentation and a brief on September 21, 1984. This documentation includes a copy of the seven orders.

On October 9, 1984, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(a)5/ Commission Chairman Mastriani referred that motion to the undersigned Hearing Examiner for a decision.

On October 16, 1984, Local 238 filed its brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. In it, Local 238 asserts that the Township violated the Act when it changed the police officer's method for selection of vacation time and limited the use of personal leave in violation of the parties collective agreement.

N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(d) reads:

If it appears from the pleadings, together with the briefs, affidavits and other documents filed, that there exists no genuine issue of material and the movant or cross-
movant is entitled to its requested relief as a matter of law, the motion or cross-motion for summary judgment may be granted and the requested relief may be ordered.

I have fully reviewed the parties' pleadings in this matter and find that the record is not fully developed with respect to all the charges.

The unfair practice charge complains of seven orders concerning vacation and personal days which were issued by Captain Chick of the Township Police Department. The Township moves for summary judgment concerning three of those seven orders, labeled 3, 4, and 5 on the basis that there are no material facts in dispute.

However, there is no record developed with respect to orders labeled 1, 2, 6, and 7. Therefore, the record is insufficient to determine whether or not any material facts are in dispute and whether or not the Township is entitled to relief as a matter of law.

Accordingly, I deny the Township's motion for summary judgment and refer the matter to a plenary hearing.

ORDER

The Township's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Judith E. Mollinger

Hearing Examiner

DATED:	January 4, 1985

Trenton, New Jersey