P.E.R.C. No. 2025-27, Jackson Tp

Notice to employeesNOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of DANIEL BURKE, Charging Party, -and- OAL Dkt. No. PRC 01885-24 Docket No. CI-2020-023 JACKSON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission adopts an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) Initial Decision finding that Jackson Township retaliated against Daniel Burke for engaging in protected activity when it laid him off from his position as Municipal Engineer. The ALJ determined that Burke was instrumental in forming the Jackson Township Municipal Supervisors’ Association, and that his protected activity included writing letters to management, processing the paperwork for gaining certification of the union, filing and processing grievances, and serving as lead negotiator during negotiations for the first contract. The ALJ found that the record evidence supported that the Township knew of his protected activity and was hostile towards that activity. The ALJ further concluded that the Township’s business justification for the layoff was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Commission modifies the ALJ’s initial decision to include a remedy of the Township offering reinstatement to Burke, making him whole for financial loss suffered, along with a notice to employees and a cease and desist order. ¶

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 DANIEL BURKE, Charging Party, -and- OAL Dkt. No. PRC 01885-24 Docket No. CI-2020-023 JACKSON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Law Offices of F. Kevin Lynch, Esq., attorneys (F. Kevin Lynch, Mildred Spiller, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, attorneys (Kyle J. Trent, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On November 6, 2024, Jackson Township (Township) filed exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) October 24, 2024 Initial Decision and Recommended Order which determined that the Township violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3a(3) when it laid off Daniel Burke (Burke), the Township Engineer, in retaliation for protected activity under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act1/ (Act). N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. On November 11, 2024, Burke filed opposition to the exceptions. ¶

PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶

On August 20, 2019, Burke filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) asserting that his impending layoff to occur on August 31, 2019, was conducted in bad faith in violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.2(c). That matter was then referred to an ALJ as a contested case. ¶

On March 2, 2020, Burke filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) alleging that the Township violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4(a)(1), (2), (3) and (4)2/ when it laid him off on August 31, 2019 in retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the Act. ¶

On April 4, 2022, the Director of Unfair Practices dismissed the charge and declined to issue a complaint, finding that the charge was untimely and that the facts alleged did not set forth a nexus that tied Burke’s alleged union activity with the elimination of his position. D.U.P. No. 2022-12, 48 NJPER 419 (¶95 2022). Burke appealed that decision to the Commission. On June 30, 2022, the Commission remanded the charge to the Director of Unfair Practices and directed the issuance of a Complaint solely on a charge that the Township violated section 5.4a(3) of the Act. P.E.R.C. No. 2022-50, 49 NJPER 55 (¶11 2022). ¶

Subsequently, the CSC Appeal and the UPC were consolidated before an ALJ on January 9, 2023, with the CSC having the predominant interest. PERC and the CSC amended the consolidation order to provide PERC with the predominant interest. On February 9, 2024, PERC formally transmitted the Complaint to the OAL. ¶

A hearing was held before the ALJ on June 26, 2023, June, 28, October 5, January 30, 2024, February 6, and February 29. The ALJ received post-hearing briefs on August 30 and September 16, 2024. The record then closed, and the ALJ issued the Initial Decision on October 24, 2024. These exceptions ensued. ¶

The matter is now before the Commission to adopt, reject or modify the ALJ’s recommendations. See N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.1(a). We have reviewed the record, the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the parties’ submissions. We find that the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by the record and adopt them. ¶

SUMMARY OF FACTS ¶

The Initial Decision3/ contains three categories of facts: those stipulated by the parties, a Summary of Testimony, and the ALJ’s findings of fact based on credibility determinations and exhibit review. They are summarized here. ¶

Burke commenced his employment as the Township Municipal Engineer in November 2002 and ceased employment when he was laid off in August 2019. (Jt. Stip. ¶2, pg.4). Burke was an excellent employee who provided valuable service to the Township. (Factual Finding ¶1, pgs. 25-26). He took on additional responsibilities, including serving as Water Systems Operator, Public Works Manager, Planning Board Member, Director of Community Development and Acting Mayor. (Factual Finding ¶1, pgs. 25-26; Summary of Testimony, pgs. 7-8,). Burke routinely and successfully obtained numerous grants benefitting the Township, averaging $300,000 per year. (Factual Finding ¶1, pgs. 25-26; pg. 24, first paragraph and FN 20). He maintained required licenses and certifications. (Factual Finding, pg. 23, second paragraph and FN.19). ¶

Neither Burke, nor any other supervisor employed by the Township, was represented by an employee organization until 2015. (Jt. Stip. ¶4-5, pg.5). In 2007, Michael Reina was appointed Mayor and continues to hold the position. (Factual Finding ¶5, pg. 26; Summary of Testimony, pg. 8). During the early years of his administration, supervisory staff were subjected to salary freezes, furloughs and freezes on cost-of-living adjustments. (Factual Finding ¶11, pg. 27; Summary of Testimony, pg. 9). At the same time, state law changed to require higher pension contributions and substantial health insurance premium contributions. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 9; PERC takes judicial notice of P.L. 2011, c. 78). Burke and Fred Rasiewicz, Public Works Supervisor, testified that unionized workers received pay increases up to 3% and lower deductions for benefits than supervisors. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 9). ¶

On February 10, 2014, Burke and Rasiewicz sent a letter to the Mayor, signed by twenty supervisors, listing their workplace concerns and asked for a meeting. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 9; Ex. A-11). In late 2014, Burke and Rasiewicz started forming what would become the Jackson Township Municipal Supervisors Association (JTMSA). (Factual Finding ¶1-2, pg. 26). ¶

Burke and Rasiewicz testified they eventually met with the Mayor to discuss the workers’ concerns.4/ (Summary of testimony, pg. 9). Rasiewicz testified that Mayor Reina appeared uninterested and “didn’t really care” about the concerns of supervisory employees. (Summary of testimony, pg. 9). A town- hall style meeting with all supervisory employees was held after this, where, according to Rasiewicz, the Mayor said: ¶

I don’t really care at this point about any concerns and how you’re feeling[.] . . . You’re kind of lucky to have a position with Jackson Township . . . . Well, listen, you’re talking about raises, your main objective is getting more money out of the township and I don’t get raises, I haven’t gotten a raise on my job [and] if I don’t get raises, you don’t get raises. ¶

[Summary of testimony, pg. 10-11.] ¶

After meeting participants complained his comments were unfair, the Mayor said: “If you don’t like what I’m saying, there’s the back door and every one of you can leave . . . go. I hate to see you go, but I won’t stop you.” (Summary of Testimony, pg. 11). ¶

Another meeting, with only Rasiewicz, Burke, Mayor Reina and then-Administrator Joseph Torres, ended quickly after the supervisors informed their employer of their intent to form a union. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 10). ¶

Rasiewicz described the meeting as “really quick.” (Ibid.) Torres told them, “If you want to form a union . . . go ahead and do it, we’re not going to stop you,” and the Mayor said, “you’re probably not going to get it anyway but do what you have to do,” and “stormed” out of the room. (Ibid.) After this meeting and during the ongoing union drive, Burke testified that he lost his title, and accompanying additional compensation, as Director of Community Development. (Ibid.; Ex. A-26). ¶

Rasiewicz and Burke collected certification cards of sufficient supervisors to file a petition with PERC in order to certify the union. (Jt. Stip. ¶4, pg. 5; Summary of Testimony, pg. 11). After litigation, which included unfounded allegations that Rasiewicz and Burke coerced other employees into signing union cards, the Director of Representation certified the unit. (Ibid., D.R. No. 2016-4) ¶

Both Rasiewicz and Burke testified that they received disciplinary actions5/ against them after the union was certified, as did the Vice President of the JTMSA, Robert Stauffer. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 10-11; Ex. A-105, A-115, A- 116). The union challenged these disciplinary actions, all of which were eventually rescinded by the Township. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 12; Factual Finding, pg. 30, FN. 22). Burke and Rasiewicz characterized the discipline as harassment. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 12). ¶

After JTMSA was certified, it took over three years to reach an initial collective negotiations agreement. (Jt. Stip. ¶4-5, pg. 5). An agreement was reached on January 11, 2019. (Ibid.) ¶

On January 22, 2019, Terrence Wall was hired as Township Business Administrator. (Jt. Stip. ¶6, pg. 5). Over the next few months, Burke and Rasiewicz submitted the budgets for their respective departments, both of which were approved by the Township Council on April 23, 2019. (Jt. Stip. ¶7-10, pg. 5). The Engineering Department budget was approximately $300,000. (Factual Finding, p. 24, first paragraph). Shortly thereafter, Wall began the process of outsourcing the engineering functions of the Township. (Jt. Stip. ¶11, pg. 5). On May 19, Wall informed Rasiewicz and JTMSA Vice President Stauffer via memo of the outsourcing plan and invited them to a meeting to discuss the issue. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 13; Ex. A-42). ¶

Wall testified that he initiated the layoff plan, conceived no later than April 2019, in order to increase the economy and efficiency of the engineering functions of the Township. (Factual Finding ¶14, pg. 27; Summary of Testimony, pg. 27). Specifically, Wall said he wished to work with a single outside engineering firm instead of working with Burke and multiple vendors and disliked certain email communications with Burke. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 27; Factual Finding, pg. 22). Wall testified that no other employee other than Burke, Rasiewicz,6/ and Bogdan was fired or laid off during his tenure, and Burke testified no layoffs occurred at the Township in his thirteen years working there. (Summary of Testimony, p. 18). ¶

The meeting to discuss outsourcing was attended by Wall, the Personnel Director and Rasiewicz. Wall informed Rasiewicz that the Engineering Department would be outsourced and that he had made up his mind and did not consider or discuss alternatives to layoff. (Factual finding ¶8, pg. 27; Summary of Testimony, pg. 14). Despite the JTMSA’s request, Wall did not provide financial information to support his claim that economies and efficiencies would result from outsourcing the Engineering Department. (Factual Finding ¶13, pg. 27). ¶

The layoff plan provided that three employees, Burke, Bogdan,7/ and their part-time secretary would be laid off. (Jt. Stip. ¶12, pg. 5). According to Burke, they were to be replaced by a private engineering firm that charged $150-165/hr, while Burke’s salary and benefits cost the Township $105/hr. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 23). While the affected secretary was able to continue employment with the Township after discussions with her union, Wall did not consider a leave of absence without pay, a voluntary furlough, voluntary reduction in work hours or the use of a temporary demotional title for Burke. (Factual Finding ¶8- 9, pg. 27; Summary of Testimony, pg. 15). Nor did Wall consider restructuring or consolidating the Engineering Department, as he did with other Departments that avoided layoffs. (Factual Finding, pg.23, second paragraph). ¶

At the hearing, Wall claimed those options were not viable and that by his calculations, the Township would save approximately $85,000, although he had not conducted a formal economic analysis nor was any analysis provided to the JTMSA. (Factual Findings ¶12-13, pg. 27; Factual Finding, pg. 30, first paragraph). The record showed that Wall did not attribute the significant grants Burke successfully obtained for the Township as part of this calculation. (Factual Finding, pg. 25, third paragraph). While Wall testified that the outside consultant would be tasked with the grant applications Burke handled, he gave no examples of successful grant applications that had been obtained by the outside consultant since Burke was laid off. (Summary of Testimony, pg. 25). All the evidence showed that the Township was financially healthy, with a AA+ bond rating and having an annual budget of $47 million in 2019 with an $11 million surplus. (Factual Finding ¶10, pg. 27; Factual Finding p. 24, third paragraph; Factual Finding 25, first paragraph). ¶

At the time of Burke’s layoff, he was earning approximately $125,000 in salary plus benefits. (Transcript, January 30, 2024, pg. 13). Since being laid off in 2019, Burke has been otherwise employed and receiving a pension from the Public Employment Retirement System. (Transcript, January 30, 2024, pg. 118). ¶

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ¶

The Township excepts to two findings of the ALJ. In the first, listed as Exception “A,” the Township avers: ¶

Burke Failed To Make a Prima Facie Showing To Support An Inference That Protected Union Conduct Was A Motivating Factor Or A Substantial Factor In The Decision To Lay Him Off And Fully Outsource The Engineering Function. ¶

The Township argues that Burke was unable to make a prima facie showing that protected activity was a motivating factor in his layoff because the ALJ found that Wall did not harbor anti- union animus and it was Wall, not Mayor Reina, who initiated the process of outsourcing the Engineering Department. It also argues that the timing between Burke’s union activity and his layoff does not support an inference of hostility. Burke responds by asserting that the ALJ correctly determined he established a prima facie case. ¶

To establish a prima facie case for a violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(3), the employee must show "the protected activity was ‘a substantial, i.e. a motivating factor’ in the employer’s disputed action.” In re Bridgewater, 95 N.J. 235, 244 (1984) (quoting In re East Orange Public Library, 180 N.J. Super. 155, 163 (App. Div. 1981)). “[I]n the absence of any direct evidence of anti-union motivation for disciplinary action, a prima facie case must be established by showing that the employee engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew of this activity, and that the employer was hostile toward the exercise of the protected rights.” Bridgewater at 246. ¶

The Commission finds that the ALJ correctly determined that Burke established a prima facie case. The record established that the Township discriminated against Burke in response to his protected activity. In determining whether the Township was hostile towards Burke, we look not just to Wall’s decision- making, but to the totality of the Township’s actions. This includes the Mayor’s statements regarding Burke’s unionization efforts. ¶

The ALJ made a finding of fact, supported by the testimony of Burke and Rasiewicz, and unrebutted by the Township, that the “JTMSA was established over the objections and negative campaigning of Mayor Reina.” Initial Dec. at 27. The ALJ found that the Mayor “was openly hostile to the exercise by Burke and Rasiewicz of their right to engage in protected activity” which included union formation. We find the unrebutted testimony that the Mayor said that supervisors “were lucky to have positions” and “[i]f [they] don’t like what I’m saying, there’s the back door and every one of [them] can leave” are plainly hostile towards protected activity. As Mayor, a leadership position at the top of the Township’s management hierarchy, his words carried significant weight. ¶

We also note that Burke was the lead negotiator on the first contract, which was very difficult for the JTMSA to achieve and took over three years for execution and ratification. While the ALJ did not find this, alone, to be evidence of bad faith negotiations, we find that it is indicative of hostility towards the protected conduct of collective negotiations. Moreover, the layoff decision occurred relatively quickly after ratification of the agreement and also shortly after the Township council approved the budget for the Engineering Department. Timing is a critical factor in determining whether there is a causal nexus linking an adverse employment action and hostility towards protected conduct. See e.g., Downe Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 86-66, 12 NJPER 3 (¶17002 1985); and Jackson Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 93-94, 19 NJPER 241 (¶24118 1993). We find, contrary to the Township’s assertions, that the timing of the layoff supports hostility. The record also supports a pattern of hostility that began before union formation and continued through Burke’s layoff. That hostility manifested itself through the Mayor’s statements, rescinded disciplinary actions, and an unfounded allegation that Burke unlawfully obtained certification cards. The unrebutted testimony was that Burke’s layoff, and the layoff of Rasiewicz one year later, are the only layoffs at the Township since Burke was employed there. In both cases, the Mayor and Council approved the layoff. ¶

Thus, Burke met his burden to establish a prima facie case that his layoff was unlawful. Burke engaged in a significant amount of protected activity, like writing letters to and seeking meetings with the Mayor to improve working conditions and his involvement in union formation and contract negotiations. The Township knew of his protected activity and exhibited a pattern of hostility towards that protected activity. ¶

Listed as Exception “B,” the Township avers: ¶

Even If Burke Made a Prima Facie Showing And The Burden Shifted, The Initial Decision Must Be Rejected And The Unfair Practice Charge Must Be Dismissed Because Jackson Demonstrated That The Same Action Would Have Taken Place Even In The Absence Of Protected Activity. ¶

The Township claims that even if Burke succeeded in making a prima facie case, the decision to outsource the Engineering Department would have been made anyway for reasons of economy and efficiency as described by Wall. In particular, the Township contends that the record demonstrated inefficiency in the Department and that Wall had outsourced this function in other municipalities and planned to do so in Jackson based on his experience. In response, Burke argues that the ALJ correctly determined that the Township did not prove this affirmative defense. ¶

Under Bridgewater, once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, “the burden shifts to the employer to 'go forward and establish by a preponderance of the evidence' that the action occurred for legitimate business reasons and not in retaliation for the protected activity.” Bridgewater at 244 (quoting East Orange Pub. Library v. Taliaferro, 180 N.J. Super. 155, 163, (App. Div. 1981)). ¶

The Commission finds that the ALJ’s finding that the Township did not prove by a preponderance of the entire record that it would have laid off Burke even in the absence of his protected activity is supported by the record. The ALJ found that while the Township may have been motivated by both anti- union animus and its desire to increase efficiency in its engineering functions, its legitimate justification did not outweigh its unlawful motivation. ¶

The Township asserts that Wall had identified “bureaucratic inefficiencies” in the Engineering Department by April 2019, approximately three months after he started as Business Administrator. The Township provided several email chains where Burke and Wall communicated, although that appeared to be the extent of their working relationship other than an introductory meeting. Wall believed that the Township engineering functions would be more efficient if he worked with one engineering firm, instead of a municipal engineer working with multiple engineering firms or vendors. According to Wall, this was based on his experience with other municipalities where he previously worked. The ALJ found this business justification to be lacking in substance, because Wall had only worked at the Township for a few months and Jackson is a much larger township than Cranford, the municipality where he was previously employed and oversaw outsourcing of the equivalent department. The ALJ also determined that what Wall deemed a “layer of bureaucracy” was merely Burke’s presence on a communication chain between outside vendors and Wall. ¶

Wall also asserted that the Township would save $85,000 per year as part of the layoff plan and that there were no other alternatives to laying off Burke and Bogdan. Wall noted that he extensively looked for ways to consolidate Departments, yet Burke, Bogdan (and later Rasiewicz) were the only individuals laid off Township-wide. Burke’s salary, including benefits, cost the Township $105/hour, while the firm that was hired to replace Burke charged $150-165/hour, but only billed for hours actually performing engineering work. The entire budget of the Department was approximately $300,000/year. Burke successfully obtained grants for the Township averaging $300,000 per year. While Wall testified that the outside consultant would be responsible for obtaining the grants formerly secured by Burke, he did not provide examples of any grants that had successfully been obtained by the outside consultant. Wall did not conduct a formal financial feasibility study. Wall testified that some financial calculations were performed, but, upon JTMSA’s request, would not share that information with the JTMSA. The ALJ also noted that the Township was on solid financial footing, had a yearly budget of $47 million, and had a AA+ bond rating. ¶

We decline to disturb the ALJ’s finding that the Township’s reasons did not establish that it would have outsourced the Engineering Department notwithstanding Burke’s showing of unlawful discrimination. The record does not support a finding that the Engineering Department was inefficient, costly, or that Burke was performing poorly. While financial distress is not required to conduct a layoff, it is an important consideration here since the Township stated that economy was the driving force for the layoff. There was no evidence of financial distress in the record. ¶

Further, the fact that Wall did not consider consolidating the functions with another Department, such as DPW where Burke was also certified to work, weighs against the business justification. We decline to disturb the ALJ’s finding that the Township failed to prove it would have laid off Burke notwithstanding the Township’s unlawful motivation. ¶

The ALJ, although finding that Burke successfully proved his retaliation claim, did not order a remedy in this case. The Commission, after finding an unfair practice was committed, is authorized “to take such reasonable affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of this act.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. “PERC possesses the authority to order that a party found to have violated the Act make the affected employees whole for their losses sustained by reason of the commission of an unfair practice.” Galloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Galloway Twp. Ass’n of Educ. Secretaries, 78 N.J. 1, 15 (1978). Id. at 16. The Commission has “a broad grant of authority . . . . to sanction all PERC remedial orders which meet the statutory test of reasonable effectuation of the Act’s purposes.” Id. at 15. ¶

Therefore, we adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision that the Township violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(3). However, we also amend/modify the ALJ’s decision to include a remedy, as detailed below. ¶

The case will now proceed to the CSC for consideration of the ALJ’s findings regarding whether Burke’s layoff was conducted in bad faith in violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.2(c). ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The ALJ’s Initial Decision is adopted and also modified/amended to include a remedy. ¶

The Township of Jackson is ordered to: ¶

A. Cease and desist from: ¶

1. Interfering with, retraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by laying off an employee for protected activity. ¶

2. Discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act, particularly by laying off an employee for protected activity; and ¶

B. Take these affirmative actions: ¶

1. Offer to reinstate Daniel Burke to his position as Municipal Engineer. ¶

2. Make Daniel Burke whole for lost salary and benefits, less mitigation, with interest at the rate set by Court Rules. ¶

3. Post in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked as Appendix “A” . Copies of such notice shall, after being signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, be posted immediately and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other materials. ¶

4. Within 20 days of receipt of this decision, notify the Chair of the Commission the steps the Respondent has taken to comply with this Order. ¶

C. The remaining aspects of the case are transferred to the Civil Service Commission. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioner Eaton, Ford, Higgins, Kushnir and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: January 30, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Notice to employeesWE SHALL cease and desist from interfering with, retraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by laying off an employee for protected activity. WE SHALL cease and desist from discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act, particularly by laying off an employee for protected activity. ¶

Note1/ This provision prohibits public employers, their representatives or agents from: “Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” ¶

2/ The charge alleged that subsection 5.4(b) was violated, but the Commission construes it as alleging violations of subsection 5.4(a). ¶

3/ All citations are to the Initial Decision unless otherwise noted. ¶

4/ Burke and Rasiewicz’ accounts of the meetings leading to unionization were unrebutted by the Township and accepted by the ALJ. (Factual Findings, pg. 20, first paragraph). ¶

5/ The Initial Decision refers to the disciplinary actions as “grievances” in this instance, but then refers to them as “disciplinary” or “employment” actions for the remainder of the decision. ¶

6/ Rasiewicz was laid off approximately one year after Burke after his position was eliminated. ¶

7/ The ALJ found that it was known to the Township that Bogdan would be leaving his position before the layoff plan was announced. (Factual finding, pg. 30, FN. 23). ¶

Notice to employeesDocket No. CI-2020-023 Jackson Township (Public Employer) Date: By: This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Public Employment Relations Commission, 495 West State Street, PO Box 429, Trenton, NJ 08625-0429 (609) 292-9830 APPENDIX “A” ¶