D.U.P. NO. 85-21

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

STATE OF NEW JERSEY (CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION),

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-85-72

COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY STATE

COLLEGE LOCALS, AFT/AFL-CIO,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Melvin E. Mounts, D.A.G.

For the Charging Party

Dwyer & Canellis

(George W. Canellis, of Counsel)

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission on September 28, 1984, by the Council of New Jersey State College Locals, AFT/AFL-CIO ("AFT") against the State of New Jersey Civil Service Commission ("Civil Service") alleging that Civil Service had engaged 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)(5) and (7).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 me and has established a standard upon which an Unfair Practice Complaint may be issued. The 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 and that formal proceedings should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues.3/ The Commission's rules provide that I may decline to issue a Complaint.4/

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

The AFT alleged in its charge that Civil Service was about to commit an unfair practice at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Specifically, the Civil Service Commission was scheduled to approve a regulation creating twenty-six generic titles for the positions located at the State Colleges of the Department of Higher Education. The contract between the State of New Jersey and the AFT provides that the faculty will not be transferred from one job title to another without negotiations between the union and the state. According to the AFT, the Civil Service Commission expressed its approval of the proposed regulation in its agenda wherein it was stated: "a significant factor is that -- since examinations are not required -- the title specifications can be considerably boarder with respect to functional duties and responsibilities." The AFT further alleged that this regulation would constitute an alteration of union job titles without prior negotiations between the union and the state in violation of Article XVI of the agreement.5/

The Commission has consistently held that an employer has a non-negotiable right to establish job descriptions and to require employees to perform additional duties related to their normal duties. See Willingboro Bd. of Ed. and Employees Association of Willingboro, P.E.R.C. No. 85-74, __ NJPER ___ (¶_____ 1984); In re Rutgers University, P.E.R.C. No. 84-45, 9 NJPER 663 (¶14287 1983); In re City of Camden, P.E.R.C. No. 83-116, 9 NJPER 163 (¶14077 1983); In re West Deptford Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-
96, 6 NJPER 56 (¶11030 1980).

The creation of the new generic job titles by Civil Service is equivalent to the establishment of job descriptions, and an employer has the right to take such a unilateral action. Therefore, the charge does not state a factual basis for the claim that Civil Service violated 5.4(a)(5) in exercising its managerial right.

Accordingly, I decline to issue a complaint.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DESIGNEE

/s/Edmund G. Gerber

DATED:	February 27, 1985

Trenton, New Jersey