NJ Civil Service Navigator

P.E.R.C. No. 2000-102, Middlesex Cty Shrf

NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2000-102, issued May 30, 2000: unfair practice charge, Middlesex Cty Shrf. The Chair of the Public Employment Relations Commission in a joint decision with the Merit System Board consolidates for hearing an unfair practice charge filed

PERC decisions and contracts · Search PERC decisions

A decision of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), not of the Civil Service Commission.

Decision
P.E.R.C. No. 2000-102
Issued
May 30, 2000
Employer, as PERC printed it
Middlesex Cty Shrf
Docket
CI-H-98-59
Kind of decision
Unfair practice charge
Reported at
27 NJPER 22 (¶32001 2000)

Synopsis

As PERC published it.

The Chair of the Public Employment Relations Commission in a joint decision with the Merit System Board consolidates for hearing an unfair practice charge filed by Joseph A. Kasha and Steven Eckel against the Middlesex County Sheriff and a Merit System Board appeal filed by Eckel against the County. The charge alleges that the employer violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act by treating FOP members disparately. The appeal challenges a ten-day suspension imposed upon Eckel. The consolidated matter will be heard by a Hearing Examiner designated as a Special Administrative Law Judge. The record will first be reviewed by the Commission to determine whether the employer violated the Act, including whether it did so in suspending Eckel. If the Commission finds that the suspension violated the Act, the decision and record will be sent to the Merit System Board for imposition of whatever specialized relief is warranted under Merit System law. If the Commission finds that Eckel would have been disciplined even absent his FOP activity, the Merit System Board will determine whether the suspension was otherwise warranted under Merit System law.

It also cites N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, which this site does not reproduce, so it is not linked.

The decision

The panel is the decision as PERC issued it; labels, links and ¶ are ours.

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY MERIT SYSTEM BOARD AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-H-98-59 JOSEPH A. KASHA and STEVEN ECKEL, Charging Parties. ----------------------------------------- COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, Respondent, v. OAL Dkt. No. CSV 10229-98 STEVEN ECKEL, Appellant. -----------------------------------------

AppearancesAppearances:

For the Respondent, Purcell, Ries, Shannon, Mulcahy & O'Neill, attorneys (Kevin Kovacs, of counsel)

For the Charging Party-Appellant, Brian M. Cige, attorney

JOINT DECISION

Steven Eckel, president of FOP Lodge No. 59, and Joseph A. Kasha, an FOP State delegate, filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission against the Middlesex County Sheriff. The charge alleges that the public employer violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A . 34:13A-1 et seq ., by treating FOP members disparately. Included among the alleged disparate illegal conduct is a ten-day suspension imposed upon Eckel, which is the subject of an appeal before the Merit System Board.

On March 17, 2000, the respondent moved to consolidate the two matters and for a determination that the Commission has the predominant interest. On April 14, the charging parties and the appellant filed a response. They did not disagree.

On May 9, 2000, Administrative Law Judge M. Kathleen Duncan issued an initial order granting the respondents' motion. No exceptions have been filed.

Having independently evaluated the record and considered the Administrative Law Judge's order, the Merit System Board at its meeting on June , 2000 and the Chair of the Public Employment Relations Commission, acting pursuant to authority delegated to her by the full Commission, on May 30, 2000 made the following determination in this matter.

JOINT ORDER

The above matters are consolidated for hearing before a Hearing Examiner of the Public Employment Relations Commission designated as a Special Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge will first offer recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law to both the Public Employment Relations Commission and the Merit System Board, disposing of all issues in controversy through a single initial decision under N.J.S.A . 1:1-18.3 and consistent with N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.8(a); and

Upon transmittal of the initial decision to both agencies, the underlying record will be forwarded to the Commission to determine whether the employer violated the Employer-Employee Relations Act, including whether it did so in suspending Eckel for ten days. If the Commission finds that the suspension violated the Act, the decision and complete record will be sent to the Merit System Board for imposition of whatever specialized relief is warranted under Merit System law. If the Commission determines that Eckel's would have been disciplined even absent his FOP activity, then its decision and the complete record will be sent to the Merit System Board which will determine whether Eckel's suspension was otherwise warranted under Merit System law.

DECISION RENDERED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CHAIR OF

MERIT SYSTEM BOARD ON THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

JUNE 20, 2000 COMMISSION ON MAY 30, 2000

Lewis A. Scheindlin Millicent A. Wasell

Acting Commissioner Chair

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is PERC's document page and the PDF PERC published. The text here was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.

Not the Civil Service Commission. PERC is a separate state agency from the Civil Service Commission. It administers the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, which governs collective negotiations in public employment; the Civil Service Commission administers Title 11A, which governs hiring, titles and discipline.

The label is ours. The kind of decision is our reading of the docket and the text. A decision applies the law to its own facts, may since have been appealed or overtaken, and is not a prediction for any other dispute. Nothing here is legal advice.

To report an error on this page, use the contact form.