D.U.P. NO. 84-15

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

BELLEVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-83-63

RAYMOND NAPOLITANO,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on May 12, 1983, and amended November 16, 1983, by Raymond Napolitano ("Charging Party") against the Belleville Board of Education ("Board") alleging that the Board 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. ("Act"), specifically N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.4(a)(3) and (4).1/

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 of the charging party, 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/

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned has determined that the Commission's complaint standards have not been met.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c), the Commission is precluded from issuing a complaint where the unfair practice charge has not been filed within six months of the occurrence of the alleged unfair practice. More specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.4(c) provides: ". . . provided that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge in which event the six months period shall be computed from the day he was no longer so prevented."

The charge, originally filed on May 12, 1983, relates to the Charging Party's discharge from employment on June 30, 1982, while on disability leave, for "absenteeism." It has, therefore, been filed well outside the six month statutory limitations period. There is no claim that Charging Party was prevented from filing a timely charge. Further, although violations of §§5.4(a)(3) and (4) are alleged, there are no facts alleged suggestive of any claim that Charging Party was discharged for the exercise of protected rights. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	December 9, 1983

Trenton, New Jersey