D.U.P. NO. 81-19

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

MORRIS TOWNSHIP ROAD DEPARTMENT,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-81-41

ROBERT BOLCAR, JR.,

Charging Party.

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on December 15, 1980, by Robert Bolcar, Jr. (the "Charging Party") against the Morris Township Road Department (the "Township") alleging that the Township was engaging in unfair practices within 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)(3)1/ by refusing to assign the Charging Party light duties and by subsequently terminating his employment.

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.

Charging Party states that the Township is "discriminating against me on the grounds of my tenure (seniority and age)." The discrimination prohibited by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(3) generally relates to activities in which an employee may engage on behalf of an employee union. The Charging Party does not assert that he was discriminated against in retaliation for his activities on behalf of an employee organization or for the exercise of protected activity. Accordingly, the discrimination alleged in this charge is not a violation of §(a)(3).

Subsequent to the filing of the instant unfair practice charge, by letter dated February 23, 1981, the charging party was informed that the charge could not be processed further unless it was amended to include factual allegations which related to the exercise of protected rights. The undersigned has not received a reply to the February 12, 1981 letter nor has the charge been amended as requested.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned hereby dismisses the instant charge.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	May 18, 1981

Trenton, New Jersey