P.E.R.C. No. 2001-12, Middlesex Cty

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-H-99-360 MIDDLESEX PBA LOCAL 156, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Bruce J. Kaplan, County Counsel ¶

(Benjamin Liebowitz, Deputy County Counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, Loccke & Correia, attorneys ¶

(Joseph Licata, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On May 11, 1999, Middlesex PBA Local 156 filed an unfair practice charge against the County of Middlesex. The charge alleges that the employer violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq ., specifically 5.4a(1), (3) and (5),1/ when it allegedly violated ¶

Note1/ These provisions 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. (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. (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a ¶

Footnote Continued on Next Page ¶

its purported promise not to lay off officers during the term of the 1996-1999 contract. That promise was allegedly made in exchange for the PBA's promise to accept lower salary increases than those awarded by an interest arbitrator. Two other counts of the charge were later dismissed pursuant to a memorandum of agreement. ¶

On January 7, 2000, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued. On April 5, the employer moved for summary judgment. The PBA opposed the motion. The motion was referred to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8. ¶

On August 10, 2000, the Hearing Examiner granted the motion to the extent that parol evidence could not be admitted to alter or impugn the terms of the 1996-1999 memorandum/collective agreement signed by the County and the PBA. He denied the motion to the extent the Complaint alleges that the County violated 5.4a(1) and (5) by repudiating a promise not to lay off police officers in exchange for concessions on wages during the term of the agreement. ¶

Note1/ Footnote Continued From Previous Page ¶

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." ¶

On August 15, 2000, the County requested special permission to appeal. It asserts that the decision partially denying the County's motion for summary judgment rests on the union's assertion that the County "acted in bad faith" in submitting a proposed layoff plan to the New Jersey Department of Personnel seeking to lay off 19 County police officers. The County further asserts that this claim was waived by the union in a partial settlement with the County that is part of the record. It argues that, in essence, the Hearing Examiner improperly disregarded the partial settlement. ¶

Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not review an interlocutory ruling of a Hearing Examiner. Although the parties settled two counts of the unfair practice charge, the settlement agreement does not appear to specify that the PBA waived its right to argue that the employer breached its duty to negotiate in good faith. The County may raise its concerns during the course of the hearing and we will review any exceptions to the Hearing Examiner's rulings at the end of the case. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

Special permission to appeal is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Millicent A. Wasell ¶

Chair ¶

Chair Wasell, Commissioners McGlynn, Muscato, Ricci and Sandman voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Madonna abstained from consideration. Commissioner Buchanan was not present. ¶

DATED: September 28, 2000 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: September 29, 2000 ¶