NJ Civil Service Navigator

P.E.R.C. No. 2004-21, Passaic

NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2004-21, issued October 30, 2003: unfair practice charge, Passaic. The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the City of Passaic’s motion for reconsideration of I.R. No. 2004-2. In that decision, a Commission designee granted a

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. 2004-21
Issued
October 30, 2003
Employer, as PERC printed it
Passaic
Docket
CO-2003-193
Kind of decision
Unfair practice charge
Reported at
29 NJPER 483 (¶150 2003)

Synopsis

As PERC published it.

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the City of Passaic’s motion for reconsideration of I.R. No. 2004-2. In that decision, a Commission designee granted a request for interim relief accompanying an unfair practice charge filed by P.B.A. Local 14. The designee ordered the City to restore a prior work schedule pending good faith negotiations with the PBA or until the Commission orders or the parties agree otherwise. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the designee’s decision.

Issue, as PERC stated it: Reconsideration denied; no extraordinary circumstances

It also cites N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.4, 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 CITY OF PASSAIC, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2003-193 PBA LOCAL 14, Charging Party.

SynopsisSYNOPSIS

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the City of Passaic’s motion for reconsideration of I.R. No. 2004-2. In that decision, a Commission designee granted a request for interim relief accompanying an unfair practice charge filed by P.B.A. Local 14. The designee ordered the City to restore a prior work schedule pending good faith negotiations with the PBA or until the Commission orders or the parties agree otherwise. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration of the designee’s decision.

This synopsis is not part of the Commission decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commission.

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF PASSAIC, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2003-193 PBA LOCAL 14, Charging Party.

AppearancesAppearances:

For the Respondent, Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys (Sean D. Dias, of counsel)

For the Charging Party, Loccke & Correia P.A., attorneys (Michael A. Bukosky, of counsel)

DECISION

On August 11, 2003, after an extension of time, the City of Passaic moved for reconsideration of I.R. No. 2004-2, 29 NJPER 310 (¶96 2003). In that decision, a Commission designee granted a request for interim relief accompanying an unfair practice charge filed by PBA Local 14. The designee ordered the City to restore a prior work schedule pending good faith negotiations with the PBA or until the Commission orders or the parties agree otherwise. 1/

The City argues that the designee improperly concluded that there was irreparable harm justifying interim relief and that the motive for the schedule change was economic.

The PBA opposes reconsideration. It argues that changes in terms and conditions of employment during interest arbitration proceedings constitute irreparable harm per se; its president’s affidavit asserted that there would be significant irreparable damage to individual PBA members if the work schedule was not restored; and it provided overwhelming evidence to show that the motivation for the schedule change was economic.

Reconsideration will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances not present here. N.J.A.C . 19:14-8.4. Unilateral changes in mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment during the collective negotiations process will almost always be found to irreparably harm that process. Unilateral changes, even during the ratification process, can shift the balance of power in the collective negotiations process. Such changes are unlawful and, where appropriate, will be rescinded if the standards for obtaining interim relief have been met. Borough of Closter, P.E.R.C. No. 2001-75, 27 NJPER 289 (¶32104 2001). Accordingly, the absence of affidavits from individual police officers claiming particularized harm does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting reconsideration of this interim relief decision. Neither does the designee’s characterization of the City’s motivation as economic. Absent a showing that an employer acted pursuant to a managerial prerogative, the fact that a unilateral change may have been partly rather than wholly motivated by economic concerns will not defeat a request for interim relief.

OrderORDER

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

Millicent A. Wasell

Chair

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

DATED: October 30, 2003

Trenton, New Jersey

ISSUED: October 30, 2003

Note1/ The Commission Chair denied the City’s request for a stay pending consideration of this motion. On the PBA’s motion, the Superior Court has enforced the interim relief order.

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.