IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF ELIZABETH AND ELIZABETH SUPERIOROFFICERS ASSOCIATION(NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4500-15T3
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF ELIZABETH,
Petitioner-Respondent,
and
ELIZABETH SUPERIOR OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION and PBA LOCAL 4,
Respondents-Appellants.
________________________________
Submitted September 14, 2017 – Decided September 25, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey Public
Employment Relations Commission, Docket No.
SN-2016-046 and SN-2016-047.
Mets Schiro McGovern & Paris, LLP, attorneys
for appellants (James M. Mets, of counsel and
on the briefs; David M. Bander, on the
briefs).
Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, attorneys for
respondent City of Elizabeth (Wayne J. Positan
and Daniel M. Santarsiero, of counsel; Mr.
Santarsiero and Christina Silva, on the
brief).
Robin T. McMahon, General Counsel, attorney
for respondent New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission (Frank C. Kanther, Deputy
General Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In October 2015, the City of Elizabeth implemented a new
automated time, attendance, and payroll system that required
Police Department Captains, Lieutenants, and Sergeants (superior
officers), and Detectives working in the Detective Bureau,
Juvenile Unit, and Narcotics Unit, to scan their fingers at the
beginning and end of each tour of duty to sign in and out of work.
The Elizabeth Superior Officers Association and PBA Local 4
(Unions) filed grievances and ultimately demanded binding
arbitration. When the Unions demanded arbitration, the City filed
two scope-of-negotiations petitions with the Public Employment
Relations Commission (P.E.R.C.). After determining that the
City's implementation of the timekeeping system was neither
mandatorily nor permissively negotiable, P.E.R.C. restrained
binding arbitration. The Unions appealed. We have considered the
Union's arguments under the applicable standard of review and
determined P.E.R.C.'s decision is neither arbitrary nor
capricious. We therefore affirm.
According to the City's Police Director, the City
implemented the new system because the previous manual timekeeping
procedure was insufficient to accurately track and document the
2 A-4500-15T3
officers and detectives who were on duty on a given day or at a
given time. The Police Director explained that the manual system
had "raised suspicions that some people were reporting that they
had worked on days or at times when they actually did not." The
Director claimed these suspicions were confirmed in November 2015,
when the new system disclosed no superior officers or detectives
signed into work on Thanksgiving day. In the previous three years,
a majority of the same officers had self-reported that they worked
on Thanksgiving day. Lastly, the Police Director certified that
no officer had been disciplined for being late or absent since the
City implemented the new timekeeping system.
The Elizabeth Superior Officers Association, representing the
City's superior officers, and PBA Local 4, representing rank-and-
file police officers, filed grievances under applicable collective
negotiations agreements. After the Police Director denied the
Unions' grievances, the Unions demanded binding arbitration.
The City filed two scope-of-negotiations petitions seeking
to restrain binding arbitration. P.E.R.C. granted the restraints.
Citing longstanding precedent, P.E.R.C. determined that "a public
employer has a managerial prerogative to establish and implement
timekeeping procedures to verify that employees are at work when
they are required to be." In re City of Elizabeth, P.E.R.C. No.
2016-83, 42 N.J.P.E.R. ¶158, 2016 N.J. PERC LEXIS 55 at 5 (2016).
3 A-4500-15T3
P.E.R.C. concluded the Unions had not met the standard for
mandatory or permissive negotiability "because the finger scan
requirement has at most a minimal effect on employee work and
welfare and allowing a challenge to the new timekeeping system
would place substantial limitations on the City's governmental
policy making powers." Ibid.
On appeal, the Unions argue:
POINT I
PERC'S MANIFEST ERROR IN REFUSING TO ALLOW
NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE NEGOTIABLE EFFECTS OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TIMEKEEPING DEVICE
IS "ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND UNREASONABLE."
POINT II
WHETHER THE UNIONS HAVE ALLEGED ONLY
"SPECULATIVE" EFFECTS OF THE CITY'S POLICY IS
A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR THE ARBITRATOR TO
DECIDE AND NOT PERC.
Having considered the Unions' arguments under our deferential
standard of review, City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police
Officers Benevolent Ass'n, 154 N.J. 555, 567-68 (1998), we affirm,
substantially for the reasons expressed in P.E.R.C.'s decision.
The decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the
record as a whole, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), and is neither arbitrary
nor capricious, Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n,
supra, 154 N.J. at 568. The Unions' arguments are without
4 A-4500-15T3
sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
5 A-4500-15T3