P.E.R.C. No. 2019-15, NJ/State Judiciary (Mercer)
NJ Public Employment Relations Commission decision P.E.R.C. No. 2019-15, issued November 21, 2018: unfair practice charge, NJ/State Judiciary (Mercer). The Chairman of the Public Employment Relations Commission and Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission issue a joint order consolidating for hea
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. 2019-15
- Issued
- November 21, 2018
- Employer, as PERC printed it
- NJ/State Judiciary (Mercer)
- Docket
- CO-2018-073
- Kind of decision
- Unfair practice charge
- Reported at
- 45 NJPER 182 (¶47 2018)
Synopsis
As PERC published it.
The Chairman of the Public Employment Relations Commission and Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission issue a joint order consolidating for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge an appeal before the CSC and an unfair practice charge before PERC, finding that the predominant interest lies with PERC. After the ALJ issues a decision to both agencies, PERC will consider and decide the unfair practice issues within its jurisdiction and the complete record will be sent to CSC to consider and decide the remaining issues within its jurisdiction.
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 JESSICA PEREZ, Appellant, OAL Dkt. No. CSV 04266-18 -and- Agency Dkt. No. 2018-2620 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY (ESSEX VICINAGE), Respondent. In the Matter of PROBATION ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY (PROFESSIONAL CASE RELATED UNIT), Charging Party, OAL Dkt. No. PRC 12437-18 PERC Dkt. No. CO-2018-073 -and- NEW JERSEY STATE JUDICIARY, Respondent. ¶
SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶
The Chairman of the Public Employment Relations Commission and Chairperson of the Civil Service Commission issue a joint order consolidating for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge an appeal before the CSC and an unfair practice charge before PERC, finding that the predominant interest lies with PERC. After the ALJ issues a decision to both agencies, PERC will consider and decide the unfair practice issues within its jurisdiction and the complete record will be sent to CSC to consider and decide the remaining issues within its jurisdiction. ¶
CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of JESSICA PEREZ, Appellant, OAL Dkt. No. CSV 04266-18 -and- Agency Dkt. No. 2018-2620 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY (ESSEX VICINAGE), Respondent. In the Matter of PROBATION ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY (PROFESSIONAL CASE RELATED UNIT), Charging Party, OAL Dkt. No. PRC 12437-18 PERC Dkt. No. CO-2018-073 -and- NEW JERSEY STATE JUDICIARY, Respondent. ¶
AppearancesAppearances: ¶
For the Appellant/Charging Party, Law Offices of Daniel J. Zirrith, LLC (Lynsey A. Stehling, of counsel) ¶
For the Respondent, Susanna J. Morris, Staff Attorney, Counsel to the Administrative Office of the Courts ¶
JOINT DECISION ¶
Jessica Perez filed an appeal of a fifty-day suspension with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On September 5, 2017, the Probation Association of New Jersey (Professional Case Related Unit) (PANJ) filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) alleging that Perez was improperly suspended from employment with the New Jersey State Judiciary, Essex Vicinage and that her Weingarten rights were violated when she was not provided union representation during an investigatory meeting. The CSC appeal was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and a Complaint on the unfair practice charge was issued by PERC. ¶
The Appellant/Charging Party filed a motion for consolidation and predominant interest determination at the OAL. The respondent opposed the motion for consolidation as three separate matters were pending. ¶
On October 3, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Julio C. Morejon issued a decision and order consolidating the cases and determining that the CSC should have the predominant interest. ¶
Having independently evaluated the record and considered the ALJ’s Order, the CSC, at its meeting on November 21, 2018 and the Chairman of PERC, acting pursuant to authority delegated to him by the full Commission, on November 13, 2018 determined that the cases should be consolidated and PERC shall have the predominant interest consistent with the standard approach taken by the CSC and PERC in similar cases. ¶
JOINT ORDER ¶
The CSC appeal and the PERC Complaint are consolidated for hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ’s single initial decision offering recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law to PERC and the CSC will dispose of all issues in controversy pursuant to 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 PERC to consider and decide the unfair practice issues within its jurisdiction; and ¶
PERC’s decision and the complete record will then be sent to the CSC to consider and decide the remaining issues within its jurisdiction. ¶
DECISION RENDERED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CHAIRMAN ¶
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ON OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ¶
NOVEMBER 21, 2018 COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 13, 2018 ¶
/s/ Deirdre’ L. Webster-Cobb /s/ Joel M. Weisblatt ¶
Deirdre L. Webster-Cobb, Chairperson Joel M. Weisblatt, 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.