Back

D.U.P. No. 91-20

Synopsis:

The Director of Unfair Practices dismisses an unfair practice charge filed by Andre Drakeford against the City of Englewood and RWDSU, Local 29. The Charging Party alleged that he was improperly discharged by the City and that the union failed to provide proper representation. The Director finds that the Charging Party failed to allege facts concerning the City that constitutes an unfair practice. The Director also finds that the Charging Party abandoned his charge against the union.

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 91-20, 17 NJPER 173 (¶22072 1991)

Appellate History:



Additional:



Miscellaneous:



NJPER Index:

01.32 72.326 72.3592

Issues:

    DecisionsWordPerfectPDF
    NJ PERC:.DUP 91 20.wpd - DUP 91 20.wpdDUP 91-020.pdf - DUP 91-020.pdf

    Appellate Division:

    Supreme Court:



    D.U.P. NO. 91-20 1.
    D.U.P. NO. 91-20
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
    BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

    In the Matter of

    CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
    & RWDSU, LOCAL 29,

    Respondents,

    -and- Docket No. CI-90-98

    ANDRE DRAKEFORD,

    Charging Party.

    Appearances:

    For the Respondent City of Englewood
    Rupp and TenHoeve, attorneys
    (William F. Rupp, of counsel)

    For the Respondent RWDSU, Local 29
    Jonas Wolf, Representative

    For the Charging Party,
    Andre Drakeford, pro se
    REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

    On July 10, 1990, Andre Drakeford ("Drakeford") filed an unfair practice charge against the City of Englewood ("City") and RWDSU, Local 29 ("union") with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") alleging that he was improperly discharged and the union failed to properly represent him in violation of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.

    Drakeford specifically alleged that he was discharged on March 7, 1990, after the operating manager of the City's Department of Public Works requested his resignation because he attended a drug


    rehabilitation facility. Drakeford alleged that the City did not follow standard rules in his case and further, other employees who attended drug rehabilitation programs were not discharged.

    Drakeford also alleged that the union failed to respond to his inquiries and failed to provide him with an arbitration hearing, even though one was promised to him. However, at a conference on Drakeford's charge with a Commission staff agent, Drakeford stated he wanted to abandon his charge against the union. Accordingly, I dismiss that portion of the charge.

    This Agency has no jurisdiction to hear Drakeford's charge against the City. The Act does not regulate the employment relationship between an employee and an employer except that an employer may not act in a way which discourages the exercise of certain rights guaranteed by the Act; that is, participation or the refusal to participate in union activity. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(3). Elizabeth Housing Authority , D.U.P. No. 90-3, 15 NJPER 385 ( & 20162 1989).

    Accordingly, I dismiss the unfair practice charge in its entirety.

    BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

    OF UNFAIR PRACTICES




    Edmund G. Gerber, Director

    DATED: February 28, 1991
    Trenton, New Jersey



    D.U.P. NO. 91-20
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
    BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

    In the Matter of

    CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
    & RWDSU, LOCAL 29,

    Respondents,

    -and- Docket No. CI-90-98

    ANDRE DRAKEFORD,

    Charging Party.

    Service on the following;

    William F. Rupp, Esq.
    Rupp & TenHoeve
    9 Kansas Street
    Hackensack, NJ 07601

    Jonas Wolf, Representative
    RWDSU, Local 29
    c/o 175 So. Van Brunt Street
    Englewood, NJ 07631

    Andre Drakeford
    127 Oak Street
    Englewood, NJ 07631


    Issued: February 28, 1991
    R/R Due: March 13, 1991

    bc: Commissioners
    ***** End of DUP 91-20 *****