P.E.R.C. No. 2004-65, Camden Cty Sheriff's Office
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2004-65, issued April 30, 2004: scope of negotiations, Camden Cty Sheriff's Office. The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Camden County Sheriff’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-46. In that decisions, the
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. 2004-65
- Issued
- April 30, 2004
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- Camden Cty Sheriff's Office
- Docket
- SN-2003-51
- Kind of decision
- Scope of negotiations
- Reported at
- 30 NJPER 133 (¶50 2004)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Camden County Sheriff’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-46. In that decisions, the Commission found mandatorily negotiable four contract proposals made by the Camden County Sheriff’s Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 and Camden County Sheriff’s Superior Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 (SOA) during interest arbitration proceedings. In its motion, the County reargues that the unions’ counsel fees proposal and the PBA’s job bidding proposal are not mandatorily negotiable. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.
Issue, as PERC stated it: Reconsideration denied
It also cites N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.11, which this site does not reproduce, so it is not linked.
Appellate history
Camden Cty. Shrf. and Camden Cty. Shrf. Offrs. and Camden Cty. SOA, PBA Loc. 277, P.E.R.C. No. 2004-65, 30 NJPER 33 (¶10 2004)
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 CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2003-51 CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICERS P.B.A. LOCAL 277 AND CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S SUPERIOR OFFICERS, P.B.A. LOCAL 277 (SOA), Respondents. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Camden County Sheriff’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-46. In that decisions, the Commission found mandatorily negotiable four contract proposals made by the Camden County Sheriff’s Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 and Camden County Sheriff’s Superior Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 (SOA) during interest arbitration proceedings. In its motion, the County reargues that the unions’ counsel fees proposal and the PBA’s job bidding proposal are not mandatorily negotiable. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. ¶
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 CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2003-51 CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICERS, P.B.A. LOCAL 277 AND CAMDEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S SUPERIOR OFFICERS, P.B.A. LOCAL 277 (SOA), Respondents. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Petitioner, Genova, Burns & Vernoia, attorneys ¶
(Lynn S. Degen and Timothy Averell, on the brief; Timothy Averell, on the reply brief; Howard S. Wilson, Counsel to the Office of the Sheriff, on the brief) ¶
For the Respondent, Klatsky Sciarrabone & DeFillippo, attorneys (Fred M. Klatsky, on the brief) ¶
DECISION ¶
On February 17, 2004, the Camden County Sheriff moved for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-46, 30 NJPER 33 (¶10 2004). In that decision, we found mandatorily negotiable four contract proposals made by the Camden County Sheriff’s Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 and Camden County Sheriff’s Superior Officers, P.B.A. Local 277 (SOA) during interest arbitration proceedings. In its motion, the County reargues that the unions’ counsel fees proposal and the PBA’s job bidding proposal are not mandatorily negotiable. ¶
On March 16, 2004, after an extension of time, the unions filed a response opposing reconsideration. They argue that the employer has not specified any extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. ¶
On March 26, 2004, the County filed a reply brief. ¶
Reconsideration will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. N.J.A.C . 19:13-3.11; 19:14-8.4. The employer relies on the arguments and briefs it submitted below and has not specified any extraordinary circumstances warranting our considering those arguments again. ¶
As for the counsel fees proposal, the employer’s only argument below was that the proposal was preempted by statute, court rule, and arbitration code. There are no grounds to reconsider those same preemption arguments. To the extent the employer is now adding a managerial prerogative argument, we cannot consider that argument for the first time through a motion for reconsideration. ¶
As for the job bidding proposal, the employer relies solely on its briefs filed in the initial proceeding. There are no grounds to reconsider those same arguments. ¶
OrderORDER ¶
The motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶
Lawrence Henderson ¶
Chairman ¶
Chairman Henderson, Commissioners Buchanan, DiNardo, Katz, Mastriani and Sandman voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶
DATED: April 29, 2004 ¶
Trenton, New Jersey ¶
ISSUED: April 30, 2004 ¶
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.