H.O. NO. 80-15

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER OF THE

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of

TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Petitioner-Public Employer,

-and-	Docket No. CU-80-1

EDUCATIONAL SECRETARIES ASSOCIATION OF

PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, NJEA,

Employee Organization.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Dillon, Bitar & Luther, Esqs.

(Henry N. Luther, III, of Counsel)

Myles C. Morrison, III, on the Brief)

For the Employee Organization

John W. Davis, UniServ Field Representative

HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 2, 1979, a Petition for [Certification] Clarification of Unit was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") by the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education (the "Board") seeking to exclude a certain employee from the collective negotiations unit currently represented by the Educational Secretaries Association of Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJEA (the "Association").1/ Specifically, the Board seeks to exclude the Administrative Secretary for the Planning and Evaluation Office from the Association's unit as a confidential employee within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3(g).

Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Bruce D. Leder on December 14, 1979, in Trenton, New Jersey, at which time all parties were given an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, and to argue orally. All briefs were filed by February 21, 1980.

Upon the entire record in this matter, the Hearing Officer finds:

(1)	The Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education is a public employer within the meaning of the Act, is subject to its provisions and is the employer of the employee involved in this matter.

(2)	The Educational Secretaries Association of Parsippany-
Troy Hills is an employee representative within the meaning of the Act, is subject to its provisions and currently represents in its unit the employee who is the subject of this matter.

(3)	The Board filed the instant Petition seeking to exclude the above-named secretarial title, currently occupied by Diana Yuhasz, from the existing unit. The Board argues that Ms. Yuhasz performs confidential duties which make her inclusion in the unit inappropriate.

(4)	The Association alleges that Ms. Yuhasz is not a confidential employee.

(5)	Accordingly, there is a question concerning the composition of the collective negotiations unit, and the matter is properly before the Hearing Officer.

BACKGROUND

The Association currently represents a unit of more than 80 secretaries. Ms. Yuhasz, the subject of this matter, holds the unit position of Administrative Secretary to the Planning and Evaluation Office. She functions as the secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation, Dr. Michael Talty2/ and Dr. Talty's Administrative Assistant, Mr. Sullivan.

There are currently three confidential secretaries employed by the Board. One secretary works for the Superintendent, another for the Business Administrator and the third for the Director of Employee Relations and the Assistant Superintendent of Administration.3/ The secretary to the Director of Employee Relations and Assistant Superintendent of Administration and the disputed title, Secretary to Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation, share an office which also contains the personnel files for most of the employees of the Board.

Prior to July 1, 1979, all negotiations were handled by a private law firm. Subsequently, the Board has hired a Director of Employee Relations, who, in addition to other duties, is the chief spokesperson for the Board in negotiations. Contrary to the past, this Director has utilized a team to prepare for negotiations. Members of that team are the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation, the Assistant Superintendent of Administration (the only Board employee who played an active part in the negotiations process before July 1, 1979), the Business Administrator and the Director of Employee Relations. This team meets once per week and is responsible for the development of the position the Board will take at the negotiations with the five associations which represent Board employees.

POSITION OF PARTIES

The Board maintains that the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation is significantly involved in the collective negotiations process and that Ms. Yuhasz, his secretary, has access to confidential material in the normal course of her work performance. In addition, the Board alleges that Ms. Yuhasz performs confidential work for other Board Administrators, namely the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent for Administration and the Director of Employee Relations. Also, simply by the fact of her physical location, Ms. Yuhasz has access to confidential information.

On the other hand, the Association contends that the record does not support a finding that Ms. Yuhasz is a confidential employee. The Association argues that the Assistant Superintendent for Planning and Evaluation is not directly involved in the collective negotiations, and therefore his secretary is not performing confidential work.

FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

The Commission is charged with the responsibility of determining the confidential status of public employees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3(g), the definition of a confidential employee. Thus, in reviewing the record herein, the Hearing Officer must consider whether or not Ms. Yuhasz's actual job duties and functions permit her access to or to have knowledge of issues involved in the collective negotiations process so as to make her membership in the existing unit incompatible with her existing duties.

A number of factors are material in making such a determination. Where the confidential status of a clerical employee is in dispute, the involvement in the collective negotiations process of the individual or individuals to which the disputed employee is assigned must be examined.4/ If it is established that such individual performs managerial or confidential functions, then the inquiry must be made into the nature of the duties which his or her secretary performs. If the clerical types recommendations regarding negotiations, disposition of grievances, budgetary allocations, or personnel matters, then such employee may be classified as confidential. Other indicia which are considered are whether or not the clerical types the minutes of private Board meetings, attends such meetings, opens confidential correspondence or has access to files containing confidential material.

DISCUSSION

A thorough review of the records reveals that the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation is intimately involved in the collective negotiations process, and his involvement will be increasing in the future. The Assistant Superintendent is one of five members of the administrative team. One function of this group in its weekly meeting, is to discuss and analyze collective negotiations proposals. The Assistant Superintendent does not attend actual negotiations sessions. Although, not part of any step in a formal grievance process, the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation has played some role in the resolution of grievances.5/

At this point, it is important to highlight that the Board has changed its method of operation with respect to the collective negotiations process. Prior to July 1, 1979, these matters were handled by a private law firm. Since then, this work is being done in-house under the direction of the Director of Employee Relations. While previously he was not involved, the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation is now directly involved in the preparation of negotiations proposals. Furthermore, the Director of Employee Relations testified that more grievance administration will also be handled in-house rather than by outside counsel.6/

Having met the first prong of the test, the actual duties and functions of Ms. Yuhasz must be examined. Concerning her typing duties, Ms. Yuhasz has not typed any negotiation proposals7/ nor has she typed any minutes of the administrative team meetings.8/ In fact, most typing is done in the work processing center.9/

On the other hand, Ms. Yuhasz does have access to some sensitive information. She does all the filing in the personal files of the Assistant Superintendent of Planning and Evaluation and also has access and does filing in personnel files of most Board employees.10/ While she does not open mail marked confidential, she does file that correspondence after it is opened by the Assistant Superintendent.11/

Ms. Yuhasz is also directly involved in certain budgetary affairs. She is responsible for the application for state aid,12/ administers grant programs,13/ and has access to monthly budget computer print-outs.14/

The evidence in the record irrefutably establishes that Ms. Yuhasz is regularly assigned to an individual who has an integral role in the formulation and implementation of management policies in the area of labor relations.15/ The testimony reveals that, through filing duties and through direct involvement, she has (1) access to various financial records, (2) access to negotiations proposals, and (3) access to personnel files which may include information related to grievances.

After a review of recent decisions concerning confidential employees,16/ the undersigned finds that these job duties support the conclusion that Ms. Yuhasz, Administrative Secretary for the Planning and Evaluation Office, is a confidential employee and should be excluded from the existing unit represented by the Educational Secretaries Association of Parsippany-Troy Hills, N.J.E.A.

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Secretary for the Planning and Evaluation Office be found to be a confidential

employee within the meaning of the Act and therefore inappropriate for inclusion in any negotiations unit.

Respectfully submitted

Bruce D. Leder, Hearing Officer

DATED:	April 8, 1980

Trenton, New Jersey