D.U.P. No. 82-20

Synopsis:

The Director of Unfair Practices declines to issue a complaint with respect to an Unfair Practice Charge filed against the Charging Party's employer. The Charging Party has not complied with Commission rules requiring that he designate the portion(s) of the Act alleged to be violated.

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 82-20, 8 NJPER 115 (¶13048 1982)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

71.11 71.226

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- DUP 82-020.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

D.U.P. NO. 82-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-82-1 JAMES J. TAYLOR, Charging Party. REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the A Commission @ ) on July 1, 1981, by James J. Taylor (the A Charging Party @ ) against the Borough of Hillsdale (the A Borough @ ) alleging that the Borough was engaging in unfair practices within the New Jersey Employer- Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (the A 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. 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.4/ Subsequent to the filing of the instant unfair practice charge, by letter dated September 21, 1981, the charging party was informed that the charge could not be processed further unless it was amended to correct its deficiencies. The undersigned has not received a reply to the September 21, 1981 letter nor has the charge been amended as requested. Accordingly, since the charge does not include factual allegations which relate to the exercise of protected activities, the undersigned hereby declines to issue a complaint with respect to the instant charge. BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES /s/Carl Kurtzman, Director DATED: January 27, 1982 Trenton, New Jersey 1/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) provides: A The Commission shall have exclusive power as hereinafter provided to prevent anyone from engaging in any unfair practice . . . whenever it is charged that anyone has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair practice, the Commission or any designated agent thereof shall have authority to issue and cause to be served upon such party a complaint stating the specific unfair practice and including a notice of hearing containing the date and place of hearing before the Commission or any designated agent thereof . . . @ 2/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. 3/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. 4/ See In re Newark Housing Authority, D.U.P. No. 80-16, 6 NJPER 193 ( & 11069 1980); In re Union Cty. Welfare Bd., D.U.P. No. 80-8, 5 NJPER 473 ( & 10238 1979); and In re North Warren Reg. Bd. of Ed., D.U.P. No. 78-7, 4 NJPER 55 ( & 4026 1977). ***** End of DUP 82-20 *****