D.U.P. NO. 80-23

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

HIGH POINT REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-80-227

HIGH POINT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on January 31, 1980 by the High Point Education Association (the "Charging Party") against the High Point Regional High School Board of Education (the "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. (the "Act"), specifically N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(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 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 issuance standards have not been met.

The Charge alleges that the school psychologist should have been offered the same percentage salary increase as other school administrators for 1979-1980 and 1980-1981. The Charge, however, also acknowledges that a collective negotiations agreement has already been negotiated with the Charging Party. It is not alleged that the salary offer violates the contract. Rather, it is alleged that the above treatment of the school psychologist violates the rules of the Commission.

Charging Party has not cited the Commission rule which it claims has been violated. The Commission has stated that unless a Charging Party claiming a violation of § (a)(7) specifies the rule alleged to have been violated, a complaint may not issue. See In re Madison Tp. Bd. of Ed., E.D. No. 76-8 (1975). Further, the undersigned cannot ascertain which rule may have been violated given the factual pattern described above.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint herein.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	April 9, 1980

Trenton, New Jersey