P.E.R.C. No. 2003-26, Kenilworth Boro

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF KENILWORTH, Public Employer, -and- MICHAEL MAURO, Docket No. RD-2002-11 Petitioner, -and- UNION COUNCIL NO. 8, Intervenor. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Public Employer, Ruderman & Glickman, attorneys (Allan C. Roth, of counsel) ¶

For the Petitioner, Michael Mauro, representative ¶

For the Intervenor, Loccke & Correia, attorneys (Michael Bukosky, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On September 30, 2002, Union Council No. 8 moved for reconsideration of a decision of the Commission Chair finding that a request for review of D.R. No. 2003-4, 28 NJPER (¶2002) could not be considered. The Chair noted these defects in the request: (1) it did not appear to have been served on the petitioner; (2) it did not comply with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 19:11-8.3 that it be a self-contained document both specifying the ground supporting review and addressing the merits of the issues for which relief is sought; and (3) it was untimely. ¶

Council No. 8's motion argues that there is no petitioner to be served and that its request was timely. ¶

We reject Council No. 8's argument that there was no petitioner to serve. Michael Mauro filed the petition and was captioned as the Petitioner in the decision Council No. 8 sought to have the Commission review. Accordingly, service upon him was required. ¶

We also reject the argument that the request for review was timely. Requests for review are due within thirteen days of when a decision is sent by mail -- ten days for the request, N.J.A.C . 19:11-8.1, and three days added to account for the time it takes to receive the decision by mail, N.J.A.C . 19:10-2.1. Requests are not due thirteen days after a decision is actually received. The Director's decision was issued by mail on August 28, 2002. A request for review was therefore due on September 10. Council No. 8's request was received on September 11 and was therefore untimely. ¶

In addition, the Chair's letter indicated that Council No. 8's submission was not a self-contained document both specifying the ground supporting review and addressing the merits of the issue for which relief is sought. The motion for reconsideration does not address that issue. ¶

Under all these circumstances, there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the Chair's decision. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Millicent A. Wasell ¶

Chair ¶

Chair Wasell, Commissioners Katz, Mastriani, McGlynn, Ricci and Sandman voted in favor of this decision. Commissioner Buchanan abstained from consideration. None opposed. ¶

DATED: October 31, 2002 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: November 1, 2002 ¶