D.U.P. NO. 85-9

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION

LOCAL #824,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CI-84-79

FRANCIS E. BOYLE,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Weitzman & Rich, attorneys

(Richard Weitzman, of counsel)

For the Charging Party

Francis E. Boyle, pro se

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission ("Commission") on May 7, 1984, by Francis E. Boyle ("Charging Party") against the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local #824 ("Local 824") alleging that Local 824 was engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ("Act").1/

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, and that formal proceeding in respect thereto should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues.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 standards have not been met.

The Unfair Practice Charge alleges that approximately 75 drivers and mechanics previously employed by the Lincoln Transit Company were hired by the New Jersey Transit Company after Lincoln went bankrupt in February 1983. The union representing the New Jersey Transit employees was Local 824. The 75 employees were informed that a $300 initiation fee was required in order to become a Local 824 member.

The Charge further alleges that the amount of the fee was higher than "other drivers" were required to pay and that after writing a letter to Local 824's International, each of the 75 was awarded a $150 rebate. The Charge further alleges that Charging Party "recently" came into possession of a copy of Local 824's by laws which revealed that the amount of the initiation fee was $75. Upon inquiry to the International, the employees were informed that a 90 day appeal period of its earlier action has expired.

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint. Although the Charging Party has failed to specify the portion or portions of the Act alleged to have been violated by Local 824, the undersigned has considered the various unfair practices which may be committed by an employee representative under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(b) and more particularly, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(b)(1) which prohibits interference with employee rights under the Act and which also incorporates actions raised under a majority representative's duty of fair representation. There is nothing in the Act which directly and indirectly regulates union membership fees,5/ and there is nothing in the Act that suggests that a majority representative violates its duty of fair representation by failing to supply its members with a copy of its bylaws or by improperly assessing membership fees.6/ The instant dispute is strictly an internal union matter which does not fall under the guise of the Act.

Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned declines to issue a complaint.7/

BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS

/s/Joel G. Scharff, Administrator

DATED:	October 5, 1984

Trenton, New Jersey