P.E.R.C. No. 2001-14, NJ/State (Human Serv)
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2001-14, issued September 29, 2000: unfair practice charge, NJ/State (Human Serv). The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses a Complaint against the State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services and Office of Employee Rel
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. 2001-14
- Issued
- September 29, 2000
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- NJ/State (Human Serv)
- Docket
- CO-H-98-36
- Kind of decision
- Unfair practice charge
- Reported at
- 26 NJPER 427 (¶31167 2000)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses a Complaint against the State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services and Office of Employee Relations). The Complaint was based on an unfair practice charge filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. The charge alleges that the State violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act when two supervisors allegedly told an employee that she would be reassigned if she did not drop a grievance by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. Given the Hearing Examiner's findings, the Commission finds no basis for concluding that the Act was violated.
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 BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY, (DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS), Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-H-98-36 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Respondent, John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General ¶
(Mary L. Cupo-Cruz, Sr. Deputy Attorney General) ¶
For the Charging Party, Weissman & Mintz, attorneys ¶
(JudiAnn Chartier, of counsel) ¶
DECISION ¶
On July 28, 1997, Local 1040 of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO filed an unfair practice charge against the State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services). The charge was amended to name Communications Workers America, AFL-CIO as the charging party and to include the Office of Employee Relations in the respondent's name. The charge alleges that the State violated 5.4a(1), (3), and (4) 1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., ¶
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 ¶
Footnote Continued on Next Page ¶
when two supervisors, Ted Sotinsky and Jeff Dickert, allegedly told an employee, Donna Galarza, on the morning of July 15, 1997 that she would be reassigned if she did not drop a grievance by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. ¶
On January 16, 1998, a Complaint was issued. The State filed an Answer denying that the supervisors had threatened to reassign Galarza if she did not drop her grievance. ¶
On August 17, 1998, Hearing Examiner Regina A. Muccifori began a hearing. After CWA rested its case, the State moved to dismiss that Complaint. The motion was denied. ¶
Ms. Muccifori began a leave of absence and was replaced by Hearing Examiner Susan L. Stahl. On August 31, 1998, the hearing resumed and the State presented its case. The parties waived oral argument and submitted post-hearing briefs. ¶
On June 29, 2000, Hearing Examiner Stahl issued her report. H.E. No. 2000-14, 26 NJPER 319 (¶31130 2000). Finding that the alleged threat had not been made, she recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. ¶
On July 1, 2000 CWA filed exceptions. It asks that we find that Galarza's supervisors threatened her and that this ¶
Note1/ Footnote Continued From Previous Page ¶
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. (4) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because he has signed or filed an affidavit, petition or complaint or given any information or testimony under this act. ¶
threat violated the Act. The State's response asks that we adopt the Hearing Examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law. ¶
We have reviewed that record. The Hearing Examiner's findings of fact (H.E. at pp. 4-23) are accurate and comprehensive. We adopt and incorporate them. ¶
CWA asserts that the Hearing Examiner found that Sotinsky told Galarza that she would be reassigned if she did not withdraw her grievance by 2:00 p.m. on July 15, 1997. To the contrary, the Hearing Examiner found that Sotinsky made no such statement and instead simply discussed with Galarza her option of remaining in the Medical Records Department and continuing to do out-of-title work or being transferred to another location to do in-title work as a secretarial assistant (finding no. 13). That finding is supported by the record. Given it, there is no basis for concluding that 5.4a(1), (3), and (4) were violated. We dismiss the Complaint. ¶
DECISION ¶
The Complaint is dismissed. ¶
OrderBY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶
Millicent A. Wasell ¶
Chair ¶
Chair Wasell, Commissioners Madonna, McGlynn, Muscato, Ricci and Sandman voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Buchanan was not present. ¶
DATED: September 28, 2000 ¶
Trenton, New Jersey ¶
ISSUED: September 29, 2000 ¶
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.