P.E.R.C. No. 2002-50, Fairview Boro

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF FAIRVIEW, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2001-66 P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 45, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Giblin & Giblin, attorneys ¶

(John L. Schettino, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Loccke & Correia, P.A., attorneys ¶

(Michael A. Bukosky, on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On December 11, 2001, P.B.A. Local No. 45 moved for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2002-27, 28 NJPER 47 (¶33014 2001). There, we granted the request of the Borough of Fairview for a restraint of binding arbitration of a PBA grievance. The grievance alleged that the adoption of an ordinance concerning the hiring of civilian dispatchers and a clerk violated the parties' agreement. ¶

We held that the employer had a prerogative to civilianize and that the PBA could not arbitrate a challenge to that action, even if the remedy sought for a violation of the contract clause prohibiting civilianization did not seek to undo the employer's decision. We assumed that the exercise of a prerogative to civilianize police officer positions could give rise to negotiable impact issues. But the PBA's grievance was not claiming, for example, a violation of a contractual obligation to compensate employees in the event the employer civilianized. It instead alleged a violation of a no replacements provision that could not be enforced to challenge the civilianization. ¶

The PBA reiterates that it does not seek to overturn the civilianization decision, but seeks a form of compensation for its unit members. It argues that we erred in restraining arbitration over negotiable impact issues. ¶

On January 28, 2002, after an extension of time, the Borough filed a response opposing reconsideration. It argues that the PBA simply repeats arguments already submitted. ¶

Reconsideration will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. N.J.A.C . 19:14-8.4. The PBA asks us to modify our legal analysis. There are no extraordinary circumstances that warrant our doing so. We reiterate that the grievance does not claim a violation of a contractual obligation to compensate employees in the event the employer civilianizes. It instead seeks a remedy for violation of a no replacement provision that under these facts is not legally arbitrable. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Millicent A. Wasell ¶

Chair ¶

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

DATED: March 27, 2002 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: March 28, 2002 ¶