D.U.P. No. 82-14

Synopsis:

The Director of Unfair Practices declines to issue a complaint with respect to an unfair practice charge filed by an incumbent representative alleging that a rival union was "coercing" the employer by transmitting employee dues deauthorizations to the employer. The Charging Party failed to designate the sections of the Act claimed to be violated. Further, the Director does not find a nexus between the alleged activities of the competing union and a violation of any subsection of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(b).

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 82-14, 7 NJPER 666 (¶12299 1981)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

71.11 71.226

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- DUP 82-014.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

D.U.P. NO. 82-14 1. D.U.P. NO. 82-14 STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION In the Matter of NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-81-389 LOCAL 29, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the A Commission @ ) on June 29, 1981, by Local 29, RWDSU, AFL-CIO (the A Charging Party @ ) against the New Jersey Education Association (the A Respondent @ ) alleging that the Respondent 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 A Act @ ). 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.1/ 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.2/ The Commission = s rules provide that the undersigned may decline to issue a complaint.3/ For the reasons stated below, the undersigned has determined that the Commission = s complaint issuance standards have not been met. Initially, the undersigned notes that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3(a)(3), an unfair practice charge must contain A . . . a statement or the portion or portions of the Act alleged to have been violated. @ Accordingly, the undersigned has determined that it is incumbent upon the Charging Party to allege the particular sections of the Act claimed to have been violated, and has declined to issue complaints where this requirement has not been met. Subsequent to the filing of the instant Unfair Practice Charge, by letter dated July 17, 1981, the undersigned informed the Charging Party that the Charge could not be processed further unless it was amended, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.5, to include the section or sections of the Act alleged to have been violated. The undersigned directed the Charging Party = s attention to the relevant provision of N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3(a)(3) and advised that a complaint would not issue if the Charging Party failed to state the specific section or sections of the Act alleged to have been violated. Pursuant to a letter dated August 11, 1981, the undersigned again referred the Charging Party to the letter of July 17, 1981 and specifically informed said Charging Party that if the Charge was not amended within 48 hours, the undersigned would decline to issue a complaint. The undersigned has not received a reply to the July 17, 1981 or August 11, 1981 letters, nor has the Charge been amended, as requested. Furthermore, the entire substance of the Charge is that the Respondent, a rival union, A coerced the Board of Education of the City of Englewood by causing to be filed with the Board of Education @ employee termination request forms for dues withdrawal from a number of custodial employees who are part of the negotiations unit represented by the Charging Party. The undersigned, based on the Charge as written, is unable to discern a nexus between the Respondent = s alleged actions and any prohibited practice under 5.4(b). Accordingly, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint herein. BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES /s/Carl Kurtzman, Director DATED: November 12, 1981 Trenton, New Jersey 1/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) provides: A The commission shall have exclusive power as hereinafter provided to prevent anyone from engaging in any unfair practice . . . Whenever it is charged that anyone has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair practice, the commission, or any designated agent thereof, shall have authority to issue and cause to be served upon such party a complaint stating the specific unfair practice and including a notice of hearing containing the date and place of hearing before the commission or any designated agent thereof . . . @ 2/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. 3/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3. ***** End of DUP 82-14 *****