WEST MORRIS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. WEST MORRIS REGIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                     NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
    Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
    parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-2173-16T4
    WEST MORRIS REGIONAL HIGH
    SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION,
    Petitioner-Respondent,
    v.
    MORRIS REGIONAL EDUCATION
    ASSOCIATION,
    Respondent-Appellant.
    _______________________________
    Argued May 23, 2018 – Decided August 28, 2018
    Before Judges Koblitz and Suter.
    On appeal from the New Jersey Public
    Employment Relations Commission, P.E.R.C. No.
    2017-29.
    Samuel B. Wenocur argued the cause for
    appellant (Oxfeld Cohen, PC, attorneys; Samuel
    B. Wenocur, on the brief).
    Matthew J. Giacobbe argued the cause for
    respondent West Morris Regional High School
    Board of Education (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri
    & Jacobs, LLC, attorneys; Matthew J. Giacobbe,
    Gregory J. Franklin and Jessica V. Henry, of
    counsel and on the brief).
    Christine   R.   Lucarelli,  Deputy   General
    Counsel, argued the cause for respondent New
    Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission
    (Robin T. McMahon, General Counsel, attorney;
    Christine R. Lucarelli, on the statement in
    lieu of brief).
    PER CURIAM
    The West Morris Education Association (Association) appeals
    from a determination by the Public Employment Relations Commission
    (PERC) on December 22, 2016, that the start and end date of the
    school calendar was a non-negotiable managerial prerogative.              We
    affirm PERC's decision.
    The West Morris Regional High School Board of Education
    (Board) and the Association negotiated a collective bargaining
    agreement (contract) for the period from July 1, 2013 to June 30,
    2016.   On June 20, 2016, during its negotiation of a successor
    contract   with   the   Association,   the   Board   filed   a   scope    of
    negotiation petition with PERC that requested PERC's determination
    about a claimed managerial prerogative.        In the parties' earlier
    contract, Article VII, Section A entitled "Work Year/Work Day/Work
    Load" provided that:
    Effective July 1, 2004, teachers employed on
    a [ten] month basis shall be employed from
    September 1 through June 30 and shall report
    to work in accordance with the calendar
    adopted by the Board not to exceed 184 days
    of work for teachers, and not to exceed 181
    days of instruction for students.
    [(emphasis added).]
    2                               A-2173-16T4
    The Board contended the phrase "shall be employed from September
    1 through June 30" must be "removed from the [a]greement because
    it unlawfully interferes with the Board's managerial prerogative
    to establish the school calendar."        The Board argued it could
    exercise its managerial prerogative to change the start date of
    the school year without affecting employees' salaries and that the
    school calendar was an educational policy goal that did not require
    mandatory negotiation.
    The Association opposed the petition, contending that its
    members would be negatively impacted if the Association could not
    negotiate the school calendar.       However, it stated the "precise
    impacts of any future action cannot be fully ascertained at this
    time." If the Board had a different start date for any one school,
    the Association argued there would be a lack of cohesiveness.
    Also, starting school in the summer months could cause health
    concerns because some schools did not have air conditioning.      The
    Association admitted that the "actual impact of changing the
    calendar may currently be unknown, [but] it will be significant."
    The Association also argued the number of teaching days could not
    be changed and any change should not apply to the contract that
    was in effect.
    PERC's December 22, 2016 decision held that "the contested
    clause[,] ["shall be employed from September 1 through June 30,"]
    3                           A-2173-16T4
    is not enforceable as it relates to a non-negotiable managerial
    prerogative."    PERC stated "[i]t is well settled that the setting
    of a school calendar in terms of when school begins and ends is a
    non-negotiable managerial prerogative," citing to Burlington Cty.
    Coll. Faculty Ass'n v. Burlington Cty. Coll. Bd. of Trs., 
    64 N.J. 10
    , 15-16 (1973). PERC relied on N.J.S.A. 18A:36-2, which provides
    that "the board of education shall determine annually the dates,
    between which the schools of the district shall be open . . . ."
    It rejected the Association's argument that Piscataway Twp. Educ.
    Ass'n v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 
    307 N.J. Super. 263
    , 267-
    68 (App. Div. 1998), required a decision in its favor, concluding
    that   "[t]he   facts   of   this   case   do   not   resemble   the   unusual
    circumstances confronted by the court in Piscataway, and any
    potential impact to Association members from a possible future
    calendar change is speculative only."           PERC decided the contested
    clause was a managerial prerogative, even though it was part of
    the parties' earlier contract.
    On appeal, the Association argues that although the Board has
    the managerial prerogative to establish a school calendar for
    students, the Board must negotiate with the Association about the
    teachers' calendar for the days when students are not present,
    including the date that teachers are to start.              It claims that
    N.J.S.A. 18A:36-2 only applies to student calendars.             It disagrees
    4                                A-2173-16T4
    with PERC's interpretation of Burlington County, and argues that
    requiring teachers to report before September 1 is contrary to the
    concept of a ten-month employee, citing various statutes and
    regulations.
    "The Legislature has vested PERC with 'the power and duty,
    upon the request of any public employer or majority representative,
    to make a determination as to whether a matter in dispute is within
    the scope of collective negotiations.'"     In re Belleville Educ.
    Ass'n, __ N.J. Super. __, __ (App. Div. 2018) (slip op. at 16)
    (quoting N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(d)).    "The standard of review of a
    PERC decision concerning the scope of negotiations is thoroughly
    settled.   The administrative determination will stand unless it
    is clearly demonstrated to be arbitrary or capricious."         
    Ibid.
    (quoting City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers
    Benevolent Ass'n, 
    154 N.J. 555
    , 568 (1998)).
    "Questions   concerning   whether   subjects   are   mandatorily
    negotiable should be made on a case-by-case basis."          Troy v.
    Rutgers, 
    168 N.J. 354
    , 383 (2001) (citing City of Jersey City, 
    154 N.J. at 574
    ).   A three-part test applies to scope of negotiations
    determinations.   In re Local 195, IFPTE, 
    88 N.J. 393
    , 403 (1982).
    An issue is negotiable when:
    (1) the item intimately and directly affects
    the work and welfare of public employees; (2)
    the subject has not been fully or partially
    5                            A-2173-16T4
    preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a
    negotiated agreement would not significantly
    interfere    with   the    determination    of
    governmental policy. To decide whether a
    negotiated   agreement   would   significantly
    interfere    with   the    determination    of
    governmental policy, it is necessary to
    balance the interests of the public employees
    and the public employer. When the dominant
    concern   is   the   government's   managerial
    prerogative to determine policy, a subject may
    not be included in collective negotiations
    even   though   it   may   intimately   affect
    employees' working conditions.
    [Id. at 404-05.]
    The     Association    acknowledges      that   the    Board   has   the
    managerial    prerogative    to   determine    the   school    calendar   for
    students, but argues the calendar for teachers on work days when
    students are not present must be negotiated.               PERC did not have
    the opportunity to address this argument because the Association
    did not raise it before PERC.       We address the argument to resolve
    it although "[g]enerally, an appellate court will not consider
    issues . . . which were not raised below."           State v. Galicia, 
    210 N.J. 364
    , 383 (2012).
    There was nothing arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable about
    PERC's decision that the contract language at issue implicated the
    Board's managerial prerogative.          It is well established that
    setting the school calendar is a managerial prerogative.
    6                               A-2173-16T4
    In Bd. of Educ. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg'l Educ. Assoc.,
    
    81 N.J. 582
    ,   592    (1980),   an   arbitrator   awarded     teachers'
    compensation when they were required to work two additional hours
    on the day before Thanksgiving.            The Board filed a complaint
    seeking to set aside the award.       In affirming the award, the Court
    stated that "[e]stablishing the school calendar in terms of when
    school commences and terminates is a non-negotiable managerial
    decision."    
    Ibid.
          However, because the two hours at issue did not
    "significantly      or    substantially   trench[]   upon   the   management
    prerogative," the Court agreed that the issue was negotiable.             
    Id. at 594
    .
    In Burlington County, the issue was whether the College Board
    of Trustees was required to negotiate the format of the college
    calendar with the faculty members' representative.            The calendar
    fixed the days the college was "open with courses available to
    students" but did not "fix the days and hours of work by individual
    facility members or their workloads or their compensation."                 
    64 N.J. at 12
    .     The Court held that the calendar "was not a subject
    of mandatory negotiation," even though it "undoubtedly has some
    practical effect on the facility's employment arrangements."              
    Id. at 13
    .    The Board
    negotiated on the matters directly and
    intimately affecting the faculty's working
    terms and conditions, such as compensation,
    7                              A-2173-16T4
    hours, workloads, sick leaves, personal and
    sabbatical leaves, physical accommodations,
    grievance procedures, etc.    It declined to
    negotiate the major educational policy of the
    calendar though it did make provision in its
    governance structure for a calendar committee
    with student, facility and administration
    representatives.
    [Id. at 14.]
    Burlington County did not distinguish between the calendar
    for students and the calendar for teachers.   It made reference to
    out-of-state cases that took conflicting positions on the issue
    of whether the calendar was negotiable, noting that the cases had
    "little pertinence here" because they "turn on the particular
    provisions of their own statutes, which differ from ours."      
    Id. at 14
    . Comments quoted by the parties from those cases were simply
    illustrative of that conflict.
    The Association argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:36-2 should be read
    in pari materia with the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations
    Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -43, to limit its applicability
    to the student calendar and not the teachers' calendar.   N.J.S.A.
    18A:36-2 provides that "[t]he board of education shall determine
    annually the dates, between which the schools for the district
    shall be open, in accordance with the law."    The statute is not
    limited in the manner suggested by the Association; the Association
    cites no supporting authority for its argument.   In fact, the Act
    8                         A-2173-16T4
    provides to the contrary stating, "nor shall any provision here
    annul or modify any . . . statutes of this State."        N.J.S.A. 34-
    13A-8.1.
    The   Association's   distinction   between   the   two   calendars
    undercuts the managerial prerogative that it acknowledges.        If the
    teachers' calendar were negotiable as the Association suggests,
    the student calendar would be controlled by it because that
    calendar could only be set within the boundaries negotiated for
    the teachers' calendar.
    We agree with PERC that      Piscataway Twp. Educ. Ass'n v.
    Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 
    307 N.J. Super. 263
    , 265 (App. Div.
    1998), does not require a different outcome.       In Piscataway, the
    superintendent changed the school calendar during the school year
    because of unexpected snow days by cancelling certain school
    holidays and adding school days to the end of the school year.
    The Piscataway Township Education Association filed an unfair
    practice charge that later was dismissed by PERC.        In Piscataway,
    we said that a change in the school's calendar "is a managerial
    prerogative of the school administration which cannot be bargained
    away.   As such, it need not be negotiated."   
    Id. at 265
    .      However,
    Piscataway also said that whether the "impact" of the calendar
    change on the "work and welfare of public employees" needs to be
    negotiated depends on "whether negotiating the impact issue would
    9                              A-2173-16T4
    significantly     or    substantially      encroach    upon    the    management
    prerogative.     If yes, the duty to bargain must give way.                     If
    . . . no, bargaining should be ordered."              
    Id. at 265
    ; 276.
    We agree with PERC that the facts in Piscataway are dissimilar
    from this case. Here, the issue does not involve a mid-year change
    in the calendar; it involves the negotiation of a new contract.
    PERC found "any potential impact to Association members from a
    possible future calendar change [was] speculative only."
    On appeal, the Association raises other alleged "potential
    significant harms" that were not presented to PERC when the issue
    was before them.1       When the Association was before PERC, it said
    the impact could not be "fully ascertained at this time" and that
    the   impact    was     "unknown,"    mentioning       only    the    need     for
    "cohesiveness" in schedules and health concerns due to lack of air
    conditioning.     PERC's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or
    unreasonable     by    not   speculating    about     the   impacts    that    the
    Association presented as unknown.
    Finally, the Association contends PERC's decision "throws
    [previous]     decisions     and   regulations   into       chaos,"   citing    to
    statutes, regulations, and cases referencing ten-month calendar
    1
    These include child care costs, teachers performing outside
    second jobs, and the need for some teachers to take their own
    children to college.
    10                                 A-2173-16T4
    employees and others referencing the school year commencing on
    September 1.   These arguments also were not made to PERC and thus,
    we decline to address them.   See Neider v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co.,
    
    62 N.J. 229
    , 234 (1973).      We do not know whether the parties
    negotiated a new contract nor what that said about the issues the
    Association claims may be affected.    We will not speculate about
    the application of statutes and regulations that were not raised
    before PERC or their impact without an appropriate record.
    Affirmed.
    11                         A-2173-16T4