P.E.R.C. No. 2026-5, University Hospital

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-003 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, Respondent, -and- KEVIN PORTER, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies a request for special permission to appeal the Director of Unfair Practices dismissal of an N.J.A.C. 34:13A-5.4b(1) allegation against Teamster Local 97. The Commission finds that the standard for special permission to appeal has not been met and concurs with the Director’s decision. The Director found that the Charging Party’s allegations (even if mistaken or negligent) did not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation as Local 97 had broad discretion to determine whether (or not) to file a grievance on the Charging Party’s behalf, whether it had been given sufficient time to respond to the Charging Party’s follow- ups, and whether to request that a union member reapply for representation. The Charging Party also alleged N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(1) and (3) claims against his employer University Hospital, and those claims will continue to be processed. ¶

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 UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-003 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, Respondent, -and- KEVIN PORTER, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, University Hospital, Director of Labor Relations (Eva M. Serruto, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Teamsters Local 97, Beckett & Paris, LLC, attorneys (Peter B. Paris, of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party (Kevin Porter, pro se) ¶

DECISION ¶

On August 1, 2025, Kevin Porter filed a request for special permission to appeal pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.6. Porter seeks to appeal the Director of Unfair Practices’ dismissal of his 5.4b(1)1/ allegations against Teamsters Local 97. ¶

Neither Respondent filed a response. ¶

The Director dismissed Porter’s N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) claim finding the charge did not allege facts sufficient to establish, if true, that Local 97’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Middlesex Cty. and Middlesex Council #7 (Mackaronis), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 81-62, 6 NJPER 555, 557 (¶11282 1981). The Commission has consistently recognized that majority representatives have a broad range of discretion in how they choose to handle the processing and/or settlement of grievances. The Commission will generally give deference to a majority representative’s determination. State of New Jersey (JJC) and CWA Local 1040 (Thorpe), D.U.P. No. 2012-8, 38 NJPER 248 (¶83 2011), aff’d, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-29, 39 NJPER 205 (¶66 2012); State of New Jersey (Kean University) and Council of NJ Colleges Locals (Roman) D.U.P. NO. 2015-10, 41 NJPER 497 (¶154 2015) aff’d, P.E.R.C. 2015-76, 42 NJPER 33 (¶8 2015). Mere negligence, incompetence, or mistakes by the majority representative in the handling of grievances is not a breach of the duty of fair representation. ¶

The Director found that Porter sought to challenge Local 97’s representation/action(s) “in July 2025” as follows: Local 97’s determination not to file a grievance and lack of response to follow ups; and Local 97’s request that Porter “reapply for representation.” The Director held that these allegations (even if mistaken or negligent) do not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation as Local 97 has broad discretion to determine whether (or not) to file a grievance on Porter’s behalf, whether it had been given sufficient time to respond to Porter’s follow-ups, and whether to request that a union member reapply for representation. ¶

Porter asserts that Local 97’s refusal to represent him was not merely negligent or discretionary, but rather arbitrary, retaliatory, and in bad faith, triggered by his resignation from his role as a union representative and his continued protected activity under the Act.2/ ¶

We deny special permission to appeal. We concur with the Director’s determination. Special permission is only granted in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. See Newark State Operated School Dist., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-63, 40 NJPER 442 (¶153 2014); and Sussex Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2010-34, 35 NJPER 430 (¶140 2009) (citing State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 2005-62, 31 NJPER 61 (¶30 2005)). ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request for special permission to appeal is denied. We refer the matter to the Director for further processing. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: August 28, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ This provision prohibits employee organizations, their representatives or agents from “(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” ¶

2/ Porter also alleges N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (3) claims against his employer University Hospital. These provisions prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from “(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act” ; and “(3) [d]iscriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” Porter asserts that he is experiencing a hostile work environment and retaliation. He identifies the retaliatory conduct as increased micro management, threats of discipline, deliberate exclusion from work duties, and manipulation. In addition, he asserts that between December 2024 and January 2025 he was denied multiple job opportunities for which he was qualified. On July 30, 2025, the Director informed Porter that the Commission will continue to process his 5.4a(1) and (3) claims against University Hospital. ¶