P.E.R.C. No. 2006-82, Rutgers University
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2006-82, issued May 25, 2006: unfair practice charge, Rutgers University. The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Thomas Figueira’s request for special permission to appeal a Hearing Examiner’s mid-hearing evidentiary ruling.
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. 2006-82
- Issued
- May 25, 2006
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- Rutgers University
- Docket
- CO-1994-158
- Kind of decision
- Unfair practice charge
- Reported at
- 32 NJPER 158 (¶69 2006)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Thomas Figueira’s request for special permission to appeal a Hearing Examiner’s mid-hearing evidentiary ruling. Figueira seeks review of the Hearing Examiner’s ruling granting the motion of Rutgers, The State University which sought to bar the proffered testimony of a professor as being irrelevant. The Commission holds that it will not intrude on a Hearing Examiner’s evidentiary rulings mid-hearing absent extraordinary circumstances.
Issue, as PERC stated it: Hearings, conduct of hearings, evidentiary standards
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 RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent, Docket No. CO-1994-158 -and- THOMAS FIGUEIRA, Charging Party-Intervenor. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Thomas Figueira’s request for special permission to appeal a Hearing Examiner’s mid-hearing evidentiary ruling. Figueira seeks review of the Hearing Examiner’s ruling granting the motion of Rutgers, The State University which sought to bar the proffered testimony of a professor as being irrelevant. The Commission holds that it will not intrude on a Hearing Examiner’s evidentiary rulings mid- hearing absent extraordinary circumstances. ¶
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 RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, Respondent, Docket No. CO-1994-158 -and- THOMAS FIGUEIRA, Charging Party-Intervenor. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Respondent, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP (John Peirano, Jr., of counsel) ¶
For the Charging Party-Intervenor, (Thomas Figueira, pro se) ¶
DECISION ¶
On April 24, 2006, charging party-intervenor Thomas Figueira sought special permission to appeal an evidentiary ruling by the Hearing Examiner and requested oral argument. That ruling granted the motion of respondent Rutgers, The State University, to bar the proffered testimony of Professor Kenneth Carlson as being irrelevant. Rutgers opposes granting special permission to appeal. ¶
We deny oral argument and special permission to appeal. As we stated in two previous cases involving these parties, we will not intrude upon a Hearing Examiner’s evidentiary rulings mid- hearing absent extraordinary circumstances. Rutgers, The State University, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-1, 31 NJPER 235 (¶89 2005); Rutgers, The State University , P.E.R.C. No. 2005-47, 31 NJPER 79 (¶36 2005). We did not find extraordinary circumstances in these instances and we do not find them here either. The determination of the relevance of proffered testimony is a matter generally committed to a Hearing Examiner’s discretion under all the circumstances of a case and we are not equipped or inclined to second-guess a ruling on relevance in the middle of a proceeding without reviewing or understanding the entire context of the case. 1/ After the Hearing Examiner issues his report, any party may file exceptions to his recommendations and we will consider the case as a whole, including any disputed evidentiary rulings. ¶
OrderORDER ¶
The request for special permission to appeal is denied. ¶
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶
Chairman Henderson, Commissioners Buchanan, DiNardo, Fuller, Katz and Watkins voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶
DATED: May 25, 2006 ¶
Trenton, New Jersey ¶
Note1/ On May 18, Figueira submitted a detailed proffer concerning his proposed examination of the witness. Such a proffer must be submitted to a Hearing Examiner in the first instance; unless it has been, it cannot be considered in ruling on a motion for special permission to appeal. ¶
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.