H.E. NO. 79-32 1.
H.E. NO. 79-32
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the Matter of
JEAN F. EMMONS, SUPERINTENDENT,
TRENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent,
-and- Docket No. CO-78-277-31
TRENTON EDUCATIONAL SECRETARIES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party.
Appearances:
For the Respondent, Merlino & Andrew, Esqs.
(Robert B. Rottkamp, of Counsel)
For the Charging Party, Greenberg & Mellk, Esqs,
(Arnold M. Mellk, of Counsel)
HEARING EXAMINER = S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDED DECISION
The Trenton Educational Secretaries Association (Association) filed an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission(Commission) on May 22, 1978, claiming that Jean Emmons, the Superintendent of the Trenton Board of Education, violated N.J.S.A 34:13A-5.4(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7)1/ when on April 28, 1078, he A urged and advised members of the Association to illegally absent themselves from their assigned duties for reasons unrelated to his duties and responsibilities as Superintendent of Schools. @
The Director of Unfair Practices determined that the allegations of the Charge if true might constitute unfair practices and, accordingly, issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing in this matter on November 17, 1978.
A hearing was held on January 8, 1979, in Trenton and all parties were given an opportunity to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and present briefs. A brief was submitted in this matter which was received in the Commission offices on February 9, 1978.
Upon the entire record the undersigned makes the following finding of fact.
In the evening of Thursday, April 27, the Trenton Board of Education (Board) met and discussed the possibility of terminating non-tenured clerical employees. On the following day, April 28, Patricia Vogt, the President of the Association, received several phone calls advising her that a number of people were not going to show up for work. These people included Juanita Smith and two nurses, Olivia Leggett and Maria Tysiak. Vogt was told that these people were not reporting to work in order to avoid receiving termination papers. A short time later that morning Vogt had left her office and saw a secretary named Sheila Johnson walking down the hall in her coat. Vogt asked Johnson why she had her coat on and Johnson replied that the Superintendent told her not to come to work that day to avoid receiving a letter of termination. Vogt also testified that she had heard that Superintendent Emmons talked with other secretaries after the Board meeting on the evening of April 27. Evelyn Joyner, the Board Supervisor of Nurses in the medical department, testified that in October of 1978 she had a conversation with Emmons about the question of terminating non- tenured secretaries. Emmons told Joyner that he A was sitting on a bar stool when a secretary approached him about being absent from or boycotting work. Emmons told the secretary that if she walked into the school and got the letter of intent she was hooked. @
Ramona Moncova testified that she was at the Board of Education meeting on April 27th and during the Board = s meeting there was banter to the effect that to avoid being laid off the secretaries should not bother to show up for work. Therefore they could not receive notice that they were to be terminated.
Ramona Moncova thought that not showing up for work might actually be a good idea. Therefore on Friday, the 28th, she did not report for work as secretary to the Executive Director of Elementary Education, William Love. Further she contacted her sisters, Roberta Moncova and Juanita Smith, and suggested that they not attend work.
Superintendent Emmons testified and denied ever advising or instructing secretaries to absent themselves from work and maintained that any contact he had with any secretary was strictly on the level of social pleasantries.
With the exception of Joyner = s testimony, the Association = s case if pure hearsay and lacks any clear direct evidence that Emmons interfered with or coerced employees in the exercise of their rights.
Joyner = s testimony is inconsistent with Emmons = but eve so there is no intimation of intimidation or coercion in the remarks attributed to Emmons by Joyner. In spite of the inconsistency with Joyner = s testimony, I find Emmons = direct testimony to be of far greater probative value than the hearsay evidence of the Association.
Accordingly, I find that the Association failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence and will recommend to the Commission that they dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint alleging that the Superintendent of the Board violated ' 5.4(a)(1), (2), (3) and (7) be dismissed in its entirely.
Edmund G. Gerber
Hearing Examiner
DATED: Trenton, New Jersey
February 21, 1979
1/ These sections provide that employers, their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act; (2) dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization; (3) discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act; (7) violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission. ***** End of HE 79-32 ***** |