P.E.R.C. No. 2009-46, Bridgeton
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2009-46, issued March 11, 2009: unfair practice charge, Bridgeton. The Civil Service Commission and the Chairman of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission issue a Joint Order consolidating an appeal before Civil Service 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. 2009-46
- Issued
- March 11, 2009
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- Bridgeton
- Docket
- CO-2008-262
- Kind of decision
- Unfair practice charge
- Reported at
- 35 NJPER 65 (¶24 2009)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Civil Service Commission and the Chairman of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission issue a Joint Order consolidating an appeal before Civil Service and an unfair practice charge before PERC for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The appeal and the charge both contest the determination of the City of Bridgeton to fine Luis Santiago. After the ALJ issues an initial decision to both agencies, PERC will make a determination within the scope of its predominant interest. The matter will then be transferred to Civil Service to determine whether the disciplinary action was warranted under Civil Service laws.
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 LUIS SANTIAGO, Appellant, OAL Docket No. CSV 2700-08 -and- Agency Docket No. 2008-3576 CITY OF BRIDGETON, Respondent. CITY OF BRIDGETON Respondent, Docket No. CO-2008-262 -and- BRIDGETON PBA LOCAL 94 Charging Party. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Civil Service Commission and the Chairman of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission issue a Joint Order consolidating an appeal before Civil Service and an unfair practice charge before PERC for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The appeal and the charge both contest the determination of the City of Bridgeton to fine Luis Santiago. After the ALJ issues an initial decision to both agencies, PERC will make a determination within the scope of its predominant interest. The matter will then be transferred to Civil Service to determine whether the disciplinary action was warranted under Civil Service laws. ¶
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 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of LUIS SANTIAGO, Appellant, OAL Docket No. CSV 2700-08 -and- Agency Docket No. 2008-3576 CITY OF BRIDGETON, Respondent. CITY OF BRIDGETON Respondent, Docket No. CO-2008-262 -and- BRIDGETON PBA LOCAL 94 Charging Party. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Appellant/Charging Party, Loccke, Correia, Schlager, Limsky & Bukosky, attorneys (Lauren P. Sandy, of counsel) ¶
For the Respondent, Gruccio, Pepper, DeSanto & Ruth, attorneys (William Blaney, of counsel) ¶
DECISION ¶
Luis Santiago filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission from the determination of the City of Bridgeton to fine him in the amount of $6,468 (an amount equal to 30 days pay). Bridgeton PBA Local 94 filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission alleging that the discipline was in retaliation for his union activity. The appeal was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law and a Complaint on the unfair practice charge was issued. ¶
On December 15, 2008, Appellant/Charging Party filed a motion for consolidation and a predominant interest determination. On December 31, Respondent advised that it did not object to the motion. ¶
On February 3, 2009, Administrative Law Judge W. Todd Miller issued an order consolidating the cases and determining that PERC should have the predominant interest. ¶
Having independently evaluated the record and considered the ALJ’s Order, the Civil Service Commission at its meeting on March 11, 2009 and the Chairman of the Public Employment Relations Commission, acting pursuant to authority delegated to him by the full Commission, on February 26, 2009 determined that the two cases should be consolidated and decided consistent with the following Joint Order. ¶
JOINT ORDER ¶
The Civil Service appeal and the unfair practice Complaint are consolidated for hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ will offer recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law to both the Public Employment Relations Commission and the Civil Service Commission, disposing of all issues in controversy through a single initial decision under N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.3 and consistent with N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.8(a); and ¶
Upon transmittal of the initial decision to both agencies, the underlying record will be forwarded to the Public Employment Relations Commission to consider and decide all questions within its unfair practice jurisdiction; and ¶
The Public Employment Relations Commission’s decision and the complete record will then be sent to the Civil Service Commission to determine whether the disciplinary action was warranted under Civil Service laws. ¶
DECISION RENDERED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CHAIRMAN ¶
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ¶
ON MARCH 11, 2009 COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 26, 2009 ¶
Hope L. Cooper, Chairperson Lawrence Henderson, Chairman ¶
Civil Service Commission Public Employment Relations Commission ¶
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.