P.E.R.C. No. 2011-1, Bridgewater-Raritan Reg B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2009-045 STAN J. SERAFIN, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission remands an amended unfair practice charge to the Director of Unfair Practices for complaint issuance on an unfair practice charge filed by Stan J. Serafin against the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional Board of Education. The charge alleges that Serafin was terminated by the Board in violation of the New Jersey Employer- Employee Relations Act, 34:13A-5.4a(1), (3), (4) and (7), in retaliation for his alleged protected activity. In P.E.R.C. No. 2010-43, the Commission remanded the charge to the Director holding that under the circumstances of the case, Serafin may have been prevented from filing a timely charge due to an alleged breach of the duty of fair representation on behalf of his majority representative and gave Serafin ten days to amend his charge to clearly and concisely allege how he was terminated for activity protected by the Act. Serafin appeals the Director’s subsequent decision that his charge, as amended, does not meet the complaint issuance standard and is untimely. The Commission holds that the amended charge meets the complaint issuance standard and that the matter of timeliness was decided in its previous decision. ¶

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 BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2009-045 STAN J. SERAFIN, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Schwartz, Simon, Edelstein, Celso & Zitomer, LLC, attorneys (Nicholas Celso, III, of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, Stan J. Serafin, pro se. ¶

DECISION ¶

Stan J. Serafin has appealed from the decision of the Director of Unfair Practices refusing to issue a Complaint based on the unfair practice charge Serafin filed against the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional Board of Education. The Board has filed a brief and exhibits in opposition to the appeal. We remand the case to the Director to issue a Complaint and to consolidate this case with Serafin’s unfair practice case against the Bridgewater-Raritan Transportation Association (CI-2009-046). ¶

The Director initially found that this unfair practice charge against the Board challenging Serafin’s termination was untimely. On December 17, 2009, we found that the charge might be timely if Serafin can prove that he was prevented from filing a timely charge because the Association breached its duty of fair representation in refusing to arbitrate a grievance challenging his termination. P.E.R.C. No. 2010-43, 35 NJPER 455 (¶150 2009); N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c (charge timely if charging party is prevented from filing a timely charge). We remanded the case to the Director and gave Serafin ten days to amend his charge to clearly and concisely allege how he was terminated for activity protected by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. ¶

On December 28, 2009, Serafin amended his charge to allege that he was terminated after sending an e-mail to the Board’s Transportation Coordinator complaining that four female employees were permitted to view a video tape allegedly showing that Serafin had engaged in conduct justifying his non-renewal, and that he, as an Association Vice-President Elect and a male, was denied permission to see the tape. Serafin characterized the Board’s action as “immediate and decisive retaliatory action against Vice President Elect Serafin for alleging discrimination and registering a complaint.” ¶

On March 10, 2010, the Director again dismissed Serafin’s charge stating that Serafin had not alleged facts indicating that he had been prevented from filing a timely charge and that he did not provide clear and concise facts indicating that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising protected conduct. ¶

The issue of timeliness was resolved in P.E.R.C. No. 2010-43. If Serafin can prove that the Association breached its duty of fair representation in not arbitrating the grievance challenging his termination, his charge against the Board will be found to be timely. As for the sufficiency of the allegations in his charge against the Board, we find that the amended allegations as summarized above meet the Complaint issuance standard. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. We repeat, however, that the charge against the Board is timely only if Serafin can prove a breach of the duty of fair representation. We remand this matter for complaint issuance and for consolidation with the charge against the Association. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

This matter is remanded to the Director of Unfair Practices to issue a complaint and an order consolidating Serafin’s two cases for hearing. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Commissioners Colligan, Eaton, Fuller, Krengel, Voos and Watkins voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: August 12, 2010 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶