P.E.R.C. No. 2027-6, Camden Cty Judiciary

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CAMDEN COUNTY JUDICIARY and OPEIU, LOCAL 32, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-027 SYLVIA COLE, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Commission denies the Charging Party’s motion for reconsideration of a Commission decision (P.E.R.C. No. 2026-39) upholding the Director of Unfair Practices’ refusal to issue a complaint on her unfair practice charge against Camden County Judiciary and OPEIU, Local 32. The Charging Party, a former Judiciary employee and OPEIU unit member, alleged that the employer violated sections 5.4a(1) and (3) of the Act by improperly investigating her conduct, suspending her for two days, and causing her constructive discharge in retaliation for requesting that the suspension be grieved; and that OPEIU violated section 5.4b(1) by breaching its duty of fair representation in mishandling her grievance request. The Commission finds the Charging Party, by merely reiterating factual contentions and arguments that the Commission fully addressed and rejected in its prior decision, failed to demonstrate the requisite extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. ¶

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 CAMDEN COUNTY JUDICIARY and OPEIU, LOCAL 32, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-027 SYLVIA COLE, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Sylvia Cole, pro se ¶

For the Respondent, Meryl G. Nadler, Esq., Counsel to ¶

the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts (Thomas Russo, on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On June 8, 2026, the Charging Party, Sylvia Cole, moved for reconsideration of a Commission decision issued on May 28, 2026, P.E.R.C. No. 2026-39, 53 NJPER 2 (¶2 2026), upholding a December 31, 2025, decision by the Director of Unfair Practices who refused to issue a complaint on an unfair practice charge (UPC) against the Respondents, Camden County Judiciary (Judiciary) (the Charging Party’s former employer) and OPEIU, Local 32 (OPEIU) (her former majority representative), that the Charging Party filed on December 17, 2025, as amended on December 29. ¶

The Charging Party filed a brief in support of her motion for reconsideration. The Judiciary filed a brief in opposition. No responsive filing was received from OPEIU. ¶

The Charging Party seeks reconsideration of our affirmance of the Director’s dismissal of her claims against the Judiciary under subsections 5.4a(1) and (3)1/ of the New Jersey Employer- Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq. (Act), and of her claims against OPEIU under subsection 5.4b(1).2/ As such, we do not address our affirmance of the Director’s dismissal of the Charging Party’s other claims under other subsections of the Act.3/ ¶

We deny reconsideration. ¶

In affirming the Director’s dismissal of the charge, the Commission found the amended UPC did not allege sufficient facts that, if true, would support the issuance of a complaint on the Charging Party’s retaliation and interference claims against the Judiciary. ¶

Regarding the 5.4a(3) charge, the Commission found the amended UPC did not allege that the Judiciary knew of Cole’s alleged protected activity of requesting that OPEIU grieve the suspension, when it imposed her 2-day disciplinary suspension. The Commission based this finding on the fact that the UPC itself alleged that the employer had received no filing related to the requested grievance. ¶

The Commission further found the amended UPC did not establish the necessary elements supporting Cole’s section 5.4a(1) claim that the Judiciary interfered with her rights when it allegedly improperly investigated her conduct and suspended her in violation of the relevant collective negotiations agreement (CNA) and then caused her constructive discharge, because such disputes are subject to the parties’ negotiated disciplinary procedures and are generally not reviewed by the Commission. ¶

The Commission also found OPEIU did not breach its duty of fair representation under section 5.4b(1) of the Act by its alleged mishandling of the grievance request. The Commission held that OPEIU’s initial inaction in filing a grievance after missing Cole’s email about it was “mere negligence” that, alone, did not rise to an unfair practice; and its subsequent inaction on Cole’s desire to contest her two-day suspension was also not an unfair practice given that she was already a former employee, having resigned relatively quickly after being served with the two-day suspension. ¶

Reconsideration of a Commission decision “will only be granted based on a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance.” N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.4. The moving party “shall specify and bear the burden of establishing the grounds warranting consideration.” Id. ¶

Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to reiterate facts or arguments that were, or could have been, previously raised. See, e.g., Saddle River Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2025-24, 51 NJPER 234 (¶55 2025); Bergen Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-20, 45 NJPER 208 (¶54 2018); Union Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2002-55, 28 NJPER 198 (¶33070 2002); Camden County Sheriff, P.E.R.C. No. 2004-65, 30 NJPER 133 (¶50 2004); accord State of New Jersey (OER), P.E.R.C. No. 88-45, 13 NJPER 841 (¶18323 1987). See also, Mercer County Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-15, 43 NJPER 114 (¶33 2016); In re Toolen, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-36, 44 NJPER 329 (¶94 2018). ¶

Here, Cole reiterates factual contentions and arguments that she raised on appeal, which the Commission fully addressed and rejected.4/ By repeating them here Cole does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. Saddle River Bd. of Ed., supra. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Charging Party’s motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: August 27, 2027 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ 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) 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/ 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.” ¶

3/ We also deny the Charging Party’s request for oral argument on her motion for reconsideration. See N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.2. ¶

4/ The Charging Party’s appeal brief contained no citations to Commission or court precedent. In her motion for reconsideration, the Charging Party cites Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). The Commission relied upon and quoted this decision in affirming the Director’s dismissal of the charge: “‘The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected’ and ‘[a] wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in servicing the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.’” P.E.R.C. No. 2026-39, 53 NJPER 2, 4 (¶2 2026). Again, mere reiteration of previously raised (and addressed) arguments does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. Saddle River Bd. of Ed., supra. ¶