P.E.R.C. No. 2004-82, Bernardsville Boro
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2004-82, issued June 25, 2004: scope of negotiations, Bernardsville Boro. The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Borough of Bernardsville’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-67. In that decision, the Commiss
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. 2004-82
- Issued
- June 25, 2004
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- Bernardsville Boro
- Docket
- SN-2004-57
- Kind of decision
- Scope of negotiations
- Reported at
- 30 NJPER 230 (¶85 2004)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Borough of Bernardsville’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-67. In that decision, the Commission declined to exercise its scope jurisdiction in the absence of a demand for arbitration, or a dispute that had arisen during successor contract negotiations. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration and reiterates that any scope of negotiations issues can be addressed in a pending unfair practice proceeding.
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.
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 BOROUGH OF BERNARDSVILLE, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2004-57 P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 365, Respondent. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Borough of Bernardsville’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-67. In that decision, the Commission declined to exercise its scope jurisdiction in the absence of a demand for arbitration, or a dispute that had arisen during successor contract negotiations. The Commission finds no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration and reiterates that any scope of negotiations issues can be addressed in a pending unfair practice proceeding. ¶
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 BOROUGH OF BERNARDSVILLE, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2004-57 P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 365, Respondent. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Petitioner, Schwartz, Simon, Edelstein, Celso & Kessler, LLP (Stefani C. Schwartz, of counsel) ¶
For the Respondent, Loccke & Correia, P.A. ¶
(Michael A. Bukosky, of counsel) ¶
DECISION ¶
On May 24, 2004, the Borough of Bernardsville moved for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2004-67, 30 NJPER 135 (¶52 2004). In that decision, we declined to exercise our scope of negotiations jurisdiction in the absence of a demand for arbitration, or a dispute that had arisen during successor contract negotiations. We added that the parties may address any scope of negotiations issue in a related unfair practice proceeding. ¶
The Borough argues that we overlooked our authority to exercise jurisdiction in scope of negotiations cases that arise under special circumstances. It further argues that our exercising our jurisdiction will promote the goals of efficiency and prevention/prompt settlement of labor disputes. The PBA responds that there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. 1/ ¶
Reconsideration will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances not present here. N.J.A.C . 19:13-3.11; 19:14-8.4. As we stated in our initial decision, any scope of negotiations issues can be addressed in the pending unfair practice proceeding. ¶
OrderORDER ¶
The motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶
Lawrence Henderson ¶
Chairman ¶
Chairman Henderson, Commissioners Buchanan, DiNardo, Katz, Mastriani, Sandman and Watkins voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶
DATED: June 24, 2004 ¶
Trenton, New Jersey ¶
ISSUED: June 25, 2004 ¶
Note1/ The PBA contends that the motion is untimely. Given our ruling on the merits, we need not address that issue. ¶
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.