Unfair labor charges filed against Millstone officials
BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP
Staff Writer

A local union alleges that Millstone Township officials violated labor laws while handling an employee's harassment complaint.

Community Workers of America (CWA) Local 1034 has filed unfair labor charges against Mayor Nancy Grbelja and Business Administrator James Pickering stemming from the termination of three Department of Public Works (DPW) employees in August, according to representatives of CWA Local 1034.

Grbelja said the charges "are absolutely false."

"What happened is that a township employee made a complaint in writing of being harassed and felt that the work environment in his department was hostile," she said. "The township has an obligation under the law to investigate the matter and to take the corrective actions necessary."

As a result of the investigation into the alleged harassment, the township terminated Jay Hyland, who worked at the DPW for seven years and was the union steward; Mike Magera, who worked with the department for 10 years; and Stan Ulikowski, who worked there for two years, according to CWA staff representative Thomas Fagan. Fagan said the investigation also resulted in the demotion of another DPW employee and the suspension of a fifth.

Fagan said the union didn't know there were problems in the department until it heard of the terminations. He alleged that the township used the harassment charge to question DPW employees about other matters in order to get rid of certain workers.

"They went on a fishing expedition," Fagan alleged. "If you read the transcripts [of the interviews], an employee will say something that doesn't fit the plot they're trying to put together, and all of a sudden there's a tape malfunction or the employee is cut off or they're putting words in people's mouths."

Grbelja said the investigation and terminations were based solely on the complaint made by a DPW employee who felt he was being harassed and was working in a hostile environment.

Grbelja said the public works department was "plagued with antics," including sugar in the gas tanks of tractors, damage to vehicles and the inappropriate execution of jobs such as the deliberate misplacement of township signs 2 inches from the ground.

"No one testified that they saw any employee putting sugar in the gas tank," Fagan said, adding that the tractor was left in a public park where "anyone could have messed with it."

Addressing the signs, Fagan said, "Mounting signs too low on a pole has nothing to do with a harassment claim."

Fagan alleged that the "horseplay" in the department started when friction between coworkers arose over job assignments.

"Jobs were not being assigned fairly," Fagan said.

"This fellow [the DPW employee who filed the harassment complaint] was believed to be having frequent conversations with the township administrator," he said, "and it created a situation where other employees believed he was getting special treatment and easy jobs because he was cozying up to the administrator."

Fagan described the "horseplay" as employees blocking in one another's vehicles in the DPW garage. He also said employees talked among each other about the employee who had made the complaint.

"They never said it to the guy's face," Fagan said. "Coworkers talk among themselves, but he wasn't even there. Does that rise to the level of harassment?"

Fagan said some of the horseplay got "a little silly."

"We think that once township officials got wind of what was going on," he said, "they saw it as an opportunity to get rid of certain individuals - one guy in particular, the union steward."

Fagan alleged that the township was trying to "go after" the union steward because he took [officials] to task for safety issues and filed complaints about the misuse of township equipment.

Grbelja said Fagan's allegations are false.

"Horseplay is not acceptable to the township and not in accordance with the law," she added.

Grbelja also said that the township could have been taken to court if it did not act on a harassment complaint.

The union has charged the township with failing to provide due process for the disciplined employees, according to CWA Branch President Kevin Tauro, and has alleged that the township refused to elaborate about the charges against the employees and withheld pertinent information.

Hearings for the employees at the administrator's level were allocated at 30 minutes per case. When the administrator contended that the township did not have to present evidence or show "just cause" as required by contract, the union moved the cases to the Township Committee level. The mayor and committee allotted 1.5 hours to hear all five cases, including the three terminations, according to Tauro.

"Either township officials are clueless about what their right to a fair hearing means," Tauro said, "or they just don't care about the rights of their employees.

"That attitude led to the filing of the unfair labor practice charges," he added.

The union has also objected to the hiring of four replacement employees on Sept. 29 before hearings were conducted.

Fagan alleged that given township officials' "gross mishandling" of the matter, it is likely that the terminated employees will be reinstated and the new hires will be displaced.

Grbelja said that the union's allegation that the township did not allow employees proper union representation during the investigation is false. She said township officials did ask DPW employees if they wanted representation, which some of them accepted.

"However, in order to protect the interests of the investigation since it dealt with a harassment charge and since we weren't sure who was doing the harassing," Grbelja said, "what we did is we said employees could pick anyone else other than the union steward in their department to be present."

Fagan said the township did not have the right to decide who the union representative would be. He said the township should not have allowed union members to use a representative from the supervisor's union because that is a different bargaining unit.

Despite the union's claims that the township never detailed the charges against the employees involved, Grbelja said that when the township found certain individuals were violating policies, those in violation were provided with documents pertaining to what policies they were violating.

Grbelja said township officials also scheduled a special meeting in September to discuss the matter. She said the township provided the employees involved with Rice notices, informing them that they and/or their jobs and job performance were going to be discussed at the meeting, which they were welcome to attend.

During the meeting, which took place a week and a half after the interviews, according to Grbelja, the Township Committee reviewed the interview transcripts and discussed the matter with the Township Attorney. Grbelja said none of the DPW employees attended the meeting.

Fagan said the Rice notice process is used when there is no union. He said no one attended the meeting because the union and the employees did not know what was going on.

"We have a contract that says employers need to show just cause," Fagan said. "It doesn't say that they get Rice notices before they give them their charges."

Grbelja said the employees had a second opportunity on Oct. 18 to appear before township officials once the township took action and filed grievances against them. She said the employees could have given statements, but that they did not. Instead, according to Grbelja, their representatives spoke to members of the committee.

"Their representatives were not prepared," Grbelja said.

Fagan said the mayor "has an incredible amount of gall" to say that the union representatives were unprepared. He said the union has documented proof that it repeatedly wrote to the township asking for detailed information as to what it was basing its actions on.

"We asked them to explain in detail what the charges were," Fagan said. "If the charge was harassment, we wanted to know when and to whom and what happened in specific detail."

Fagan said union representatives received copies of the transcripts of the employee interviews and the administrator's report on Oct. 12.

The matter will now go before the state Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which will hear the unfair labor charges. An initial conference has been scheduled for Nov. 30. Each of the five cases will be assigned to an arbitrator.

Fagan said, "The facts don't support the heavy-handed actions and unfortunately, it is ultimately the township taxpayers who pay the price when management overreacts and violates the rules."

Grbelja said, the "obvious increase in productivity" in the DPW since the change in personnel was made already amounts to "a tax savings."

When asked if the township would consider reinstating the jobs, Grbelja said, the arbitrator would have to order it to do so.