D.U.P. No. 82-7
Synopsis:
The Director of Unfair Practices declines to issue a complaint with respect to an Unfair Practice Charge alleging that the employer refused to negotiate an agency shop proposal with the Charging Party. The Director finds that although, if the facts are true, an unfair practice may have been committed, the circumstances involving this matter are such that formal litigation should not be instituted. The Charging Party requested negotiations when legislation allowing the negotiation of agency shop became effective, and sought inclusion of the agency shop provision in a currently effective agreement. The employer, according to the Charging Party, agreed to negotiate this subject for inclusion only in a successor agreement.
In response to the Charge, the employer indicated that it had directed its agents to now negotiate agency shop within the context of the current agreement and stated that its agents had already commenced these negotiations. This activity preceded the Commission's rulings of first impression that there was an obligation to immediately negotiate agency shop in the context of existing agreements, upon demand. Thus, the Board's violation of the Act, i.e., its initial refusal to negotiate was de minimis and occurred at a time when the applicability of the agency shop amendments was subject to question. There is little likelihood of repitition of its conduct in the future.
PERC Citation:
D.U.P. No. 82-7, 7 NJPER 488 (¶12216 1981)
Appellate History:
Additional:
Miscellaneous:
NJPER Index:
24.221 43.83 46.642 71.226 72.511 72.584
Issues:
Decisions | WordPerfect | PDF |
| | |
NJ PERC: | . | - DUP 82-007.pdf
|
|
Appellate Division: | | |
|
Supreme Court: | | |
|
|