P.E.R.C. No. 2003-13, Burlington Cty

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of : : MATILDA ENDRESS, : : Appellant, : : -and- : OAL Docket No. CSV 8330-00 : BURLINGTON COUNTY, : : Respondent. : : : BURLINGTON COUNTY, : : Respondent, : : -and- : PERC Docket No. CO-H-2001-98 : COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF : AMERICA, LOCAL 1034, : : Charging Party.: ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party/Appellant, Steve Jarema, CWA Staff Representative ¶

For the Respondent, Evan H.C. Crook, Burlington County Solicitor (Daniel Hornickel, Assistant County Solicitor) ¶

DECISION ¶

Matilda Endress was suspended for six days by Burlington County on charges of insubordination, conduct unbecoming a State employee, neglect of duty, and other sufficient cause. On September 28, 2000, she appealed to the Merit System Board. ¶

On October 19, 2000, Communications Workers of America, Local 1034 filed an unfair practice charge alleging that Endress was suspended and subjected to spurious charges as part of an effort to destroy the bargaining unit. On January 10, 2001, the charge was amended to add additional allegations. On February 20, 2001, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing based on the charge and amendment issued. ¶

On March 13 and 27, 2002, respectively, the Chair of the Public Employment Relations Commission, acting pursuant to authority delegated to her by the full Commission, and the Merit System Board entered a Joint Order consolidating the charge and appeal. The consolidated case would be heard by an Administrative Law Judge. The Judge's initial decision and the record would be forwarded to the Commission first to determine whether Endress's suspension was motivated by hostility towards activity protected by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act. The case would then be transferred to the Merit System Board to determine whether the suspension was for legitimate business reasons and whether it was otherwise warranted under Merit System law. If necessary, the case would then be returned to the Commission for the issuance of any specialized relief. ¶

On September 27, 2001, a conference hearing was held. On June 13, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Kathryn A. Clark issued her Initial Decision. She found and concluded that Endress failed to follow an order and therefore was insubordinate, did not conduct herself in a manner becoming a State employee, and neglected her duty. The ALJ sustained the charges and found the six-day suspension appropriate and in accord with the principle of progressive discipline. The ALJ did not sustain the claim that transferring Endress to another facility constituted an unfair practice. She found that her services were needed at the facility to which she was reassigned and that her activity as a shop steward was not hampered by the reassignment. ¶

The Initial Decision was served on the parties. No exceptions were filed. ¶

We have reviewed the record. We adopt the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusion that the record does not support finding that protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the decisions to suspend or reassign Endress. In re Bridgewater Tp., 95 N.J . 235 (1984). Accordingly, we dismiss the unfair practice Complaint and transfer the matter to the Merit System Board pursuant to our Joint Order. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Complaint is dismissed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Millicent A. Wasell ¶

Chair ¶

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

DATED: July 25, 2002 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: July 26, 2002 ¶