D.U.P. No. 80-3
Synopsis:
The Director of Unfair Practices, finding that none of the criteria are present for reasserting jurisdiction of Unfair Practice Charges which had been deferred to arbitration, declines to issue complaints. The Unfair Practice Charges related to the closing of the employer's premises for electrical construction. Although the Charges were deferred to arbitration, the Charging Parties presented the underlying issues in Superior Court upon a suit for contract enforcement. The Charging Parties' claim was denied by the Court. Charging Parties alleged that the Court did not consider certain aspects of the dispute which were raised in its Unfair Practice Charge. The Director observes that the issues could have been resolved in an arbitration proceeding, and that the nonpresentation or unsuccessful argument of certain contractual claims or pertinent theories by the Charging Parties is not a basis for reassertion of Commission jurisdiction of deferred Unfair Practice Charges.
PERC Citation:
D.U.P. No. 80-3, 5 NJPER 332 (¶10178 1979)
Appellate History:
Additional:
Miscellaneous:
NJPER Index:
71.8 71.83
Issues:
Decisions | WordPerfect | PDF |
| | |
NJ PERC: | . | - DUP 80-003.pdf
|
|
Appellate Division: | | |
|
Supreme Court: | | |
|
|