P.E.R.C. No. 2017-23, NJ Transit Mercer
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2017-23, issued October 20, 2016: unfair practice charge, NJ Transit Mercer. The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms the decision of the Director of Unfair Practices declining to issue a Complaint based on the unfair practice
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. 2017-23
- Issued
- October 20, 2016
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- NJ Transit Mercer
- Docket
- CI-2015-004
- Kind of decision
- Unfair practice charge
- Reported at
- 43 NJPER 175 (¶53 2016)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms the decision of the Director of Unfair Practices declining to issue a Complaint based on the unfair practice charge, as amended, by Theodore Warfield against New Jersey Transit (NJT). The charge alleges that NJT violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., specifically 5.4a(1), (3), (4) and (5), by terminating Warfield after he had filed an unfair practice charge with the Commission. The Commission agrees with the Director’s determination that Warfield’s charge does not satisfy the complaint issuance standard.
It also cites N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(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 NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2015-004 THEODORE WARFIELD, Charging Party. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms the decision of the Director of Unfair Practices declining to issue a Complaint based on the unfair practice charge, as amended, by Theodore Warfield against New Jersey Transit (NJT). The charge alleges that NJT violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., specifically 5.4a(1), (3), (4) and (5), by terminating Warfield after he had filed an unfair practice charge with the Commission. The Commission agrees with the Director’s determination that Warfield’s charge does not satisfy the complaint issuance standard. ¶
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 NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2015-004 THEODORE WARFIELD, Charging Party. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Respondent, Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of New Jersey (Michael J. Gonnella, Deputy Attorney General) ¶
For the Charging Party, (Theodore Warfield, Pro Se) ¶
DECISION ¶
On August 5, 2016, Theodore Warfield appealed a decision of the Director of Unfair Practices that refused to issue a Complaint based on the unfair practice charge, as amended, he filed against his former employer, New Jersey Transit. D.U.P. No. 2017-2, 43 NJPER 84 (¶24 2016). Warfield’s charge, alleges that New Jersey Transit violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1),(3),(4) and (5). ¶
Warfield’s appeal is a one page document with attached exhibits. It reads in its entirety: ¶
NJ Transit did fire the charging party on 4 March 14 for a number [of] reasons, one a clear violation of PERC policy and rules because the charging party filed a successful PERC complaint against NJT on 2 May 12 resulting in a removal [of] a written warning for filing [an] EEOC complaint against NJ Transit on Jan. 24, 2013. NJ Transit has always used progressive discipline with all [their] employees but not the charging party. See attached decisions. ¶
The Director’s decision discusses the allegations of Warfield’s charge and why it does not satisfy the complaint issuance standard. D.U.P. No. 2017-2 also chronicles prior unfair practice charges and employment-related actions the charging party and/or his majority representative has pursued. Based on the reasons set forth in that decision we deny the charging party’s appeal. ¶
OrderORDER ¶
The refusal to issue a Complaint is sustained. ¶
BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶
Chair Hatfield, Commissioners Bonanni, Jones, Voos and Wall voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioners Boudreau and Eskilson were not present. ¶
ISSUED: October 20, 2016 ¶
Trenton, New Jersey ¶
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.