D.U.P. NO. 81-9

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

SAYREVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-81-15

SAYREVILLE EDUCATION SECRETARIAL

ASSOCIATION,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent

Casper P. Boehm, Jr., attorney

For the Charging Party

Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, attorneys

(Nancy Iris Oxfeld, of counsel)

REFUSAL TO ISSUE COMPLAINT

An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") on July 16, 1980, and amended on September 10, 1980, by the Sayreville Education Secretarial Association (the "Association") against the Sayreville Board of Education (the "Board") alleging that the Board 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 "Act"), specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) and (5).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.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.

The Charge in the instant proceeding alleges that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) and (5) when it abolished a twelve month Class B secretary position and created instead a ten month Class A position and when it abolished a twelve month Class A secretary position and created instead a ten month Class A position without prior negotiations with the Association. The charge indicates that the twelve month positions were abolished and the ten month positions created to correspond with existing vacancies due to a resignation and retirement. In In re Ramapo-
Indian Hills Ed. Assn. v. Ramapo-Indian Hills H.S. Dist. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-9, 5 NJPER 302 (¶10163 1979), affmd. App. Div. Docket No. A-4613-78 (10/10/80), the Commission held that a Board of Education has no obligation to negotiate over a Board's decision to abolish a position and to create a new position. Accordingly, Ramapo-Indian Hills dictates that the undersigned decline to issue a complaint since the allegations of the Association, even if true, cannot constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act.5/

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF UNFAIR PRACTICES

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	November 13, 1980

Trenton, New Jersey