Back

D.U.P. No. 92-11

Synopsis:

The Director of Unfair Practices dismisses an unfair practice charge alleging that the Asbury Park Administrators and Supervisors Association and the Asbury Park Board of Education violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act") by discharging the charging party, discriminating against the charging party in negotiating a salary and by the alleged improper constitution of the Association's negotiating team. The Director finds that all of the operative events underlying the charge occurred outside of the Act's six-month statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Director determines that the charge was untimely filed.

PERC Citation:

D.U.P. No. 92-11, 18 NJPER 210 (¶23092 1992)

Appellate History:



Additional:



Miscellaneous:



NJPER Index:

71.13

Issues:

    DecisionsWordPerfectPDF
    NJ PERC:.DUP 92 11.wpd - DUP 92 11.wpdDUP 92-011.pdf - DUP 92-011.pdf
    Appellate Division:
    Supreme Court:


    D.U.P. NO. 92-11 1.
    D.U.P. NO. 92-11
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
    BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

    In the Matter of

    ASBURY PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION
    and ASBURY PARK ADMINISTRATORS AND
    SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION,

    Respondents,

    -and- Docket No. CI-91-81

    STACEY H. MICHAELIDES,

    Charging Party.

    Appearances:

    For the Respondent Board of Education
    McOmber & McOmber, attorneys
    (J. Peter Sokol, of counsel)

    For the Respondent Association
    N.J. Principals & Supervisors Association
    (Wayne J. Oppito, attorney)

    For the Charging Party
    D. Gayle Loftis, attorney
    REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

    I have reviewed the allegation of the unfair practice charge filed on behalf of Stacey Michaelides (Michaels) against the Asbury Park Board of Education and Administrators and Supervisors Association. The charge, filed on June 20, 1991, has three basic allegations: Michaelides discharge was motivated by anti-union animus, the union negotiating team was improperly constituted and the salary negotiated for Michaelides was discriminatory.

    N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) precludes the Commission from issuing a Complaint where an unfair practice charge has not been filed within six (6) months of the occurrence of any unfair practice, unless the aggrieved person was prevented from filing the charge. See In re North Warren Bd. of Ed., D.U.P. No. 78-7, 4 NJPER 55 (& 4026 1977).

    All events alleged by Michaelides occurred by August 16, 1990, more than six months prior to the filing of the charge, and, the charge does not show how Michaelides was prevented from filing the charge in a timely way.

    Based upon the foregoing, I find that the Commission's complaint issuance standard has not been met and decline to issue a complaint on the allegations of this charge.

    BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

    OF UNFAIR PRACTICES




    Edmund G. Gerber, Director
    DATED: March 20, 1992
    Trenton, New Jersey

    ***** End of DUP 92-11 *****