NJ Civil Service Navigator

P.E.R.C. No. 2005-30, Lower Tp

NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2005-30, issued October 28, 2004: scope of negotiations, Lower Tp. The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses a scope of negotiations petition filed by the Township of Lower. The petition seeks a determination that the impleme

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. 2005-30
Issued
October 28, 2004
Employer, as PERC printed it
Lower Tp
Docket
SN-2005-011
Kind of decision
Scope of negotiations
Reported at
30 NJPER 449 (¶150 2004)

Synopsis

As PERC published it.

The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses a scope of negotiations petition filed by the Township of Lower. The petition seeks a determination that the implementation of a prior police work schedule for employees represented by P.B.A. Local 59 is a non-negotiable managerial prerogative. The Commission holds that this petition is untimely under N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.5(c).

Issue, as PERC stated it: Educational employees, clerical and office, refusal to bargain in good faith, direct communications, cease and desist

It also cites N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.5(c), N.J.A.C. 19:10-3.1, which this site does not reproduce, so they are 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 TOWNSHIP OF LOWER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2005-011 P.B.A. LOCAL 59, Respondent.

AppearancesAppearances:

For the Petitioner, Anthony P. Monzo, P.C., attorneys (Anthony P. Monzo, on the brief)

For the Respondent, Cohen, Leder, Montalbano & Grossman, LLC, attorneys (Bruce D. Leder, on the brief)

DECISION

On August 10, 2004, the Township of Lower petitioned for a scope of negotiations determination. The Township seeks a determination that the implementation of a prior police work schedule for employees represented by P.B.A. Local 59 is a non- negotiable managerial prerogative.

The PBA represents all patrol officers and sergeants in the department. The parties’ collective negotiations agreement expired on December 31, 2003. The parties are in negotiations for a successor agreement. On February 18, 2004, the PBA petitioned for interest arbitration. On March 18, the Township submitted a response to the petition. The response listed “Determination of work period” as an additional economic issue in dispute. The parties’ expired agreement sets forth an 8-hour police work schedule. However, in 2001, the Township changed to a 12-hour schedule, which the officers continue to work. The contractual work schedule provision was never amended to incorporate a 12-hour schedule.

This scope petition was filed nearly six months after the interest arbitration petition. The PBA asserts that the petition should be dismissed as untimely under N.J.A.C . 19:16-5.5(c). That regulation requires scope petitions to be filed within 14 days of the receipt of the filing of an interest arbitration petition and specifies that the failure to file a timely petition will constitute an agreement to arbitrate all unresolved issues. 1/ The PBA argues that the parties have met twice, on May

24 and August 10, 2004, with the interest arbitrator in an attempt to resolve the differences concerning the work schedule issue, and to permit this petition to go forward will further delay the processing. The Township has not responded to this argument.

We dismiss the Township’s scope petition. The timeline set forth in N.J.A.C . 19:16-5.5(c) structures the interest arbitration process; ensures that the parties and the arbitrator know the nature and extent of the controversy at the outset; and fosters the statutory goal of providing for an expeditious, effective and binding procedure for resolution of disputes between employers and police. Wyckoff Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2004-63, 30 NJPER 107 (¶43 2004). Scope petitions filed after the time period set in N.J.A.C . 19:16-5.5(c) are presumptively time- barred, although we will consider, on a case-by-case basis, arguments that N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.5(c) should be relaxed. Borough of Roseland , P.E.R.C. No. 2000-46, 26 NJPER 56 (¶31019 1999); N.J.A.C . 19:10-3.1. The Township has not shown good cause or unusual circumstances to relax N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.5(c).

OrderORDER

The scope of negotiations petition is dismissed.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION

Lawrence Henderson

Chairman

Chairman Henderson, Commissioners Buchanan, DiNardo, Katz and Watkins voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Sandman abstained from consideration. Commissioner Mastriani was not present.

DATED: October 28, 2004

Trenton, New Jersey

ISSUED:

Note1/ N.J.A.C . 19:16-5.5(c) provides that:

Where a dispute exists as to whether an unresolved issue is within the required scope of negotiations, the party asserting that an issue is not within the required scope of negotiations shall file with the Commission a petition for scope of negotiations determination pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:13. This petition must be filed within 14 days of receipt of the notice of filing of the petition requesting the initiation of compulsory interest arbitration. The failure of a party to file a petition for scope of negotiations determination shall be deemed to constitute an agreement to submit all unresolved issues to compulsory interest arbitration.

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.