On or about August 1986, C.W.A. and the Board have been involved in negotiations for a successor contract. No new contract was entered into when these contracts expired on December 31, 1986.

1/ These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; and (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative."

Accompanying the charge was an Application for Interim Relief which asked that the Board show cause before the Commission why an interlocutory order should not be issued restraining the County from implementing these changes in vacation policy pending negotiations for a successor agreement. An Order to Show Cause was signed and both parties waived a hearing and relied on their filed papers.

The standards that have been developed by the Commission for evaluating interim relief requests are similar to those applied by the Courts when confronted with similar applications. The moving party must show it has a substantial likelihood of success on the legal and factual allegations in the final Commission decision and it must show it will be irreparably harmed if the requested relief is not granted. Both of these standards must be satisfied before the requested relief will be granted. Furthermore, the relative hardship to the parties must be evaluated before interim relief may be granted.

It is undisputed that the parties were engaged in negotiations for a successor agreement at the time of the expiration of the contract and the County admits that the Board Director did promulgate new vacation rules as alleged by the Association.

The law in this area is well settled. The Commission, as confirmed by the Courts, has held that the terms and conditions of employment which are in effect at the time a contract expires must be maintained until the parties have exhausted the Commission's dispute resolution mechanisms. See, Galloway Tp. Bd.Ed. v. Galloway Tp. Ed.Assn., 78 N.J . 25 (1978); Union Cty. Reg. H.S. Bd.Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 78-27, 4 NJPER 11 (& 4007 1977); Hudson Cty. Bd.Chosen Freeholders v. Hudson Cty. PBA Local No. 51 , App. Div. Docket No. A-2444-77 (4/9/79), aff'g P.E.R.C. No. 78-48, 4 NJPER 87 (& 14041 1978); Rutgers, The State University v. Rutgers University College Teachers Assn ., App. Div. Docket No. A-1572-79 (4/1/81) aff'g P.E.R.C. No. 80-66, 5 NJPER 539 (& 10278 1979); City of Vineland , I.R. No. 81-1, 7 NJPER 324 ( & 12142 1981) interim order enforced and leave to appeal denied, App. Div. Docket No. AM-1037-80T3 (7/15/81); State of New Jersey, I.R. No. 82-2, 7 NJPER 532 ( & 12235 1981);

ewark Public Library , I.R. No. 84-9, 10 NJPER 321 ( & 15154 1984); Belleville Bd.Ed ., I.R. No. 87-5, 12 NJPER 692 ( & 17262 1986).

Here, the Board's unilateral alteration of the provisions of the terms and conditions of employment during the pendancy of negotiations impermissibly chills those negotiations. See Galloway, supra.

Accordingly, the C.W.A. has a substantial likelihood of success in prevailing at a full plenary hearing in this matter and further the chilling effect placed upon the negotiations of the terms and conditions of employment will irreparably interfere with negotiations and finally in balancing the harms, restraining the County from implementing the changes in vacation policy have a minimal impact upon the Board.

Accordingly, I enter the following ORDER.

Edmund G. Gerber
Commission Designee

DATED: March 3, 1987
Trenton, New Jersey