P.E.R.C. No. 2000-34, NJ/State (DEP)

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Public Employer, -and- Docket No. RO-H-94-91 (Section Chiefs - Department COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, of Environmental Protection) AFL-CIO, Petitioner. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Public Employer, John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General (Michael L. Diller, Senior Deputy Attorney General) ¶

For the Petitioner, Weissman and Mintz, attorneys ¶

(Steven P. Weissman, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On April 30, 1999, the State of New Jersey moved for reconsideration of a Commission decision. That decision declared that section chiefs in the State's Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") are not managerial executives as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3g. State of New Jersey (DEP ), P.E.R.C. No. 99-59, 25 NJPER 48 (¶30021 1998).1/ ¶

Note1/ The same motion also sought reconsideration of another decision declaring that chief investigators and assistant chief investigators in the State's Office of the Public Defender are not managerial executives as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3g. State of New Jersey (Office of the Public Defender ), P.E.R.C. No. 99-60, 22 NJPER 55 (¶30022 1998). We consider the motion for reconsideration of that decision in a separate opinion also issued today. ¶

The State requests that we grant reconsideration and declare section chiefs managerial executives. It argues that we did not attribute enough weight to the technical expertise of section chiefs in DEP's policymaking process. ¶

On June 29, 1999, CWA filed a response opposing reconsideration. CWA asserts that we properly decided that section chiefs serve as technical advisors and experts, not as policymakers. ¶

N.J.A.C . 19:11-9.3 governs motions for reconsideration in representation cases. The moving party must specify extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. ¶

We decline to reconsider P.E.R.C. No. 99-59. That decision comprehensively articulates, analyzes, and applies the relevant criteria concerning the issue of managerial executive status. In particular, we decline to reconsider our belief that the section chiefs' professional and technical expertise in complicated areas does not make them managerial executives organizationally responsible for formulating or directing the effectuation of DEP's management policies and practices. 2/ ¶

Note2/ The statutory definition of managerial executive speaks of persons who formulate management policies and practices or are charged with the responsibility of directing their effectuation. The State suggests that we recognize a third category of managerial executives: employees whose positions are created for the purpose of assisting managerial executives in the first two categories. The State, however, recognizes that this case does not present any facts or issues concerning the putative third category ¶

Footnote Continued on Next Page ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 99-59 is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Millicent A. Wasell ¶

Chair ¶

Chair Wasell, Commissioners Buchanan, Madonna, McGlynn, Muscato and Ricci voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

DATED: October 28, 1999 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: October 29, 1999 ¶

Note2/ Footnote Continued From Previous Page ¶

Orderand simply asks us not to foreclose the possibility that such a category might exist. Because we are denying reconsideration, we do not consider that possibility further. For the same reason, we decline the State's request that we take administrative notice of statistics concerning the represented and unrepresented portions of its work force. ¶