IN THE MATTER OF RIDGEFIELD PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION AND RIDGEFIELD PARK EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) , 459 N.J. Super. 57 ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1694-17T4
IN THE MATTER OF
RIDGEFIELD PARK BOARD
OF EDUCATION,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Respondent-Respondent,
May 3, 2019
and APPELLATE DIVISION
RIDGEFIELD PARK EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner-Appellant.
_______________________________
Argued January 7, 2019 – Decided May 3, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino, Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission, Docket Nos. SN-2017-047 and
SN-2017-056.
Steven R. Cohen argued the cause for appellant
(Selikoff & Cohen, PA, attorneys; Steven R. Cohen, of
counsel and on the briefs; Keith Waldman and Hop T.
Wechsler, on the briefs).
Kerri A. Wright argued the cause for respondent
(Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, PC, attorneys; Kerri A.
Wright, of counsel and on the brief; David L. Disler, on
the brief).
Don Horowitz, Senior Deputy General Counsel, argued
the cause for respondent New Jersey Public
Employment Relations Commission (Christine
Lucarelli-Carneiro, General Counsel, attorney; Don
Horowitz, on the statement in lieu of brief).
Kathleen Asher argued the cause for amicus curiae New
Jersey School Boards Association (Cynthia J. Jahn,
General Counsel, attorney; Cynthia J. Jahn and
Kathleen Asher, on the brief).
Ira W. Mintz argued the cause for amicus curiae
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(Weissman & Mintz, LLC, attorneys; Ira W. Mintz, on
the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Sumners, J.A.D.
This dispute concerns the allowable scope of negotiations for employee
contributions to health care and prescription coverage (collectively health
insurance coverage) costs in accordance with L. 2011, c. 78, §§ 39 and 41
(Chapter 78), codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1.
Petitioner Ridgefield Park Education Association (the Association) appeals the
scope of negotiations ruling by the Public Employment Relations Commission
(PERC) in favor of respondent Ridgefield Park Board of Education (the Board),
which held that Chapter 78 preempted the terms of the parties' collective
A-1694-17T4
2
negotiations agreement for the period July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2018 (2014-2018
CNA or successor contract).
Chapter 78 prescribed health insurance contribution rates for public
employees over a four-year period beginning July 1, 2011, at gradually
increasing rates designated Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4. The parties'
collective negotiations agreement covering July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014 (2011-
2014 CNA) and the subsequent 2014-2018 CNA both provided that Association
members contribute 1.5% of their salary or the minimum set forth by statute,
regulation, or code towards health insurance. During the last year of the 2011-
2014 CNA, the Association members had contributed at the Tier 3 level
following their contributions at the Tier 1 and 2 levels during the agreement's
first two years.
In the first year of the 2014-2018 CNA, Association members contributed
at the Tier 4 level. Thereafter, based upon a PERC decision interpreting Chapter
78, the Association and the Board filed petitions for a scope of negotiations
determination with PERC to determine if the legislation required Association
members to contribute at the Tier 4 rate throughout the remaining three years of
the 2014-2018 CNA contract and not the 1.5% contribution rate set forth therein.
A-1694-17T4
3
Siding with the Board, PERC determined that under Chapter 78, based on
the timing and length of the successor contract, the Association members were
required to contribute at the Tier 4 rate throughout the remaining three years of
the 2014-2018 CNA and not just the first year as contended by the Association.
We reverse the final agency decision because we conclude that under the
circumstances presented, PERC's interpretation of Chapter 78 is contrary to the
Legislature's intent since it creates the absurd result of a financial hardship of
having Association members contribute at the Tier 4 level for three additional
years.
I
Enactment of Chapter 78
Seeking to stem the impact of rising costs of health insurance, the
Legislature's 2011 enactment of Chapter 78 prescribed specific contribution
rates for public employees' health insurance coverage. Chapter 78 mandated
that public employees contribute to their health insurance coverage on a
percentage-of-premium basis, with the percentage varying depending upon the
employee's income and the type of coverage selected. The contribution rates
were to be phased in over the course of four years, as follows:
during the first year in which the contribution is
effective, one-fourth of the amount of contribution;
A-1694-17T4
4
during the second year in which the contribution is
effective, one-half of the amount of contribution; and
during the third year in which the contribution is
effective, three-fourths of the amount of contribution,
as that amount is calculated in accordance with section
39 of [L. ]2011, [c. ]78 ([N.J.S.A.] 52:14-17.28c).
[N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1(a).]
In no case, however, could the employee's contribution rate be less than the 1.5%
of their base salary. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1(a).1 The financial impact of Chapter
78 was that employees were required "to contribute from three to thirty-five
percent of their health care premium costs, rising with salary." In re New
Brunswick Mun. Emps. Ass'n, 453 N.J. Super. 408, 416 (App. Div. 2018).2
1
Chapter 78 allowed for a board of education to enter into a contract that
provided "for an amount of employee contribution as a cost share or premium
share that is other than the percentage required under subsection a. of this
section," but only if the board certified, subject to approval by the Department
of Education and the Division of Pension and Benefits in the Department of the
Treasury, that the savings equaled or exceeded the savings from the
contributions otherwise mandated under the law. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1(b).
2
For example, the record indicates that under Tier 4 employees earning from
$50,000 to over $95,000, would contribute anywhere between 20% and 35% of
their salary for single coverage; between 12% and 30% of their salary for family
coverage; and between 15% and 30% of their salary for member/spouse/partner
or parent/children coverage.
A-1694-17T4
5
Chapter 78 had a sunset provision, expiring four years after its effective
date of June 28, 2011.3 However, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.1(c),4
public employers and employees were bound to complete full implementation
of the four-tier contribution schedule, even if the date of full implementation
occurred after Chapter 78's expiration date of June 28, 2014. See also N.J.S.A.
18A:16-17.2. Chapter 78 went into effect two days before the 2011-2014 CNA
became effective.
3
L. 2011, c. 78, § 83.
4
Providing, in pertinent part,
Once those employees are subjected to the contribution
requirements set forth in subsection a. of this section,
the public employers and public employees shall be
bound by this act, [L. ]2011, [c. ]78, to apply the
contribution levels set forth in [N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c]
until all affected employees are contributing the full
amount of the contribution, as determined by the
implementation schedule set forth in [N.J.S.A. 18A:16-
17.1(a)]. Notwithstanding the expiration date set forth
in section 83 of this act, [L. ]2011, [c. ]78, or the
expiration date of any successor agreements, the parties
shall be bound to apply the requirements of this
paragraph until they have reached the full
implementation of the schedule set forth in [N.J.S.A.
18A:16-17.1(a)].
A-1694-17T4
6
Furthermore, Chapter 78 addressed the negotiation of collective
bargaining agreements to be executed after employees reached full
implementation of the four-tier premium share, setting forth that the full
premium share must be considered the status quo in such negotiations. The first
and final sentences of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2 provided:
A public employer and employees who are in
negotiations for the next collective negotiations
agreement to be executed after the employees in that
unit have reached full implementation of the premium
share set forth in [N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c] shall conduct
negotiations concerning contributions for health care
benefits as if the full premium share was included in the
prior contract.
....
After full implementation, those contribution levels
shall become part of the parties' collective negotiations
and shall then be subject to collective negotiations in a
manner similar to other negotiable items between the
parties.
Health Insurance Contribution of Association Members
With the enactment of Chapter 78, the Association members' health
insurance contribution rates under the 2011-2014 CNA were preempted and paid
as follows:
A-1694-17T4
7
School Year Chapter 78 Tier
July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 Tier 1
July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 Tier 2
July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 Tier 3
On June 11, 2014, the parties reached an agreement on the 2014-2018
CNA. With regard to health insurance contribution levels, it contained the same
language as the 2011-2014 CNA, stating at Article XXIII(A)(3): "Employees
covered under this Article shall contribute the following percentage of their
salary towards health insurance: 1.5% or the minimum set forth by statute,
regulation, or code. Contributions shall be made through payroll deduction."
Thereafter, consistent with the parties' understanding,5 Association members
contributed at the Tier 4 level for the first year – July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
– of the successor contract to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 78, and in the
beginning of the second year – July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 – the members
contributed 1.5% of their salaries in accordance with Article XXIII (A)(3).
5
According to a certification of Ray Skorka, the New Jersey Education
Association UniServ representative who assisted the Association in the contract
negotiations.
A-1694-17T4
8
Disagreement Over Health Insurance Contribution
In December 2015, the Board unilaterally altered the contribution rate of
Association members. Citing Chapter 78 and the August 31, 2015 PERC
decision in Clementon Bd. of Educ. v Clementon Educ. Ass'n, P.E.R.C. No.
2016-10, 42 N.J.P.E.R. ¶ 34, 2015 N.J. PERC LEXIS 76 (2015), District
Superintendent Eric W. Koenig notified Association President David Tadros in
a December 21 letter, that the Board's counsel advised that under Chapter 78,
the 1.5% health insurance contribution level set forth in the 2014-2018 CNA is
illegal and Association members must contribute at the Tier 4 level throughout
the entire agreement.
In Clementon Bd. of Educ., PERC determined that Chapter 78 "expressly,
specifically and comprehensively sets forth that health benefit contribution
levels become negotiable in the 'next collective negotiations agreement after
. . . full implementation' of the four-tiered level of employee contributions is
achieved." Id. at 6 (alteration in original) (quoting N.J.S.A. 18:16-17.2). PERC
further explained:
For example, if the parties agree to a contract with a
one-year term, [the 1.5% of salary contribution level in
their agreement] would be preempted by N.J.S.A.
18A:16-17.2 from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, the
final year of employee contributions at Tier 4 levels.
However, it would not be preempted in the "next"
A-1694-17T4
9
agreement when employee contribution levels become
negotiable. Alternatively, if the parties agree to a
multi-year successor agreement, the express language
of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2 would preempt [the 1.5% of
salary contribution level in their agreement] for the first
year of the successor agreement as well as any
additional years in the agreement until the "next"
agreement when employee contribution levels would
become negotiable.
[Id. at 7.]
The superintendent asked the Association to voluntarily agree with the
Board's position. However, in a December 27 reply letter, President Tadros
stated that the Association disagreed with the advice of the Board's counsel, and
opposed the continuation of Tier 4 contribution levels beyond the first year of
the 2014-2018 CNA.
The Board, without the Association's consent, moved forward with its
plan, commencing with salary deductions of Association members at the Tier 4
level on January 6, 2016, and declared that this contribution level would
continue until the 2014-2018 CNA expired on June 30, 2018. Hence,
Association members would be contributing at the Tier 4 level for the entire four
years of the 2014-2018 CNA under the Board's interpretation of Chapter 78.
In response, the Association filed a grievance seeking the return of salary
deductions for health insurance coverage contributions above the rate of 1.5%
A-1694-17T4
10
of each members' salary. The Association and the Board subsequently agreed
to hold the grievance in abeyance pending this court's resolution of an appeal of
PERC's ruling in Clementon Bd. of Education.
We, however, subsequently dismissed the appeal as moot because while
it was pending, the parties in Clementon Bd. of Educ. negotiated two separate
agreements: a one-year CNA, setting contribution at the Tier 4 level, and a
successor three-year CNA, setting contribution at a collectively negotiated rate,
as spelled out in PERC's ruling. In re Clementon Bd. of Educ., No. A-0372-15
(App. Div. Sept. 30, 2016) (slip op. at 9-13). Within weeks, the Association
reinstated its grievance, which the Board denied. The dispute then went to
binding arbitration with PERC appointing an arbitrator.
In the meantime, in a December 11, 2016 email, Superintendent Koenig
notified Association members that the Board was further required to conform
with Chapter 78, as "clarified" in the Clementon Bd. of Educ. PERC decision,
by recovering the unpaid Tier 4 level contributions for the period of July 1, 2015
to January 5, 2016, because the contribution rate of 1.5% of the Association
members' salary was "improper[ly]" deducted under Article XXIII (A)(3) of the
2014-2018 CNA. The superintendent stated that the unpaid contributions would
A-1694-17T4
11
be recovered through the freezing of member salaries beginning in the upcoming
2017-2018 school year until the full Tier 4 contributions were paid.
PERC Scope of Negotiations Petitions
In June 2017, the Association filed a petition for a scope of negotiations
determination with PERC, claiming that the negotiated 1.5% contribution rate
was not preempted by statute or regulation. The Board subsequently filed its
own petition for a scope of negotiations determination with PERC, seeking to
restrain the Association's request for arbitration. PERC consolidated the two
matters and issued a consolidated briefing schedule.
After rejecting the parties' respective contentions that there were
procedural barriers to each other's petitions, PERC adopted the same reasoning
it had reached earlier in Clementon Bd. of Educ. and granted the Board's request
to restrain arbitration. The agency ruled:
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2 expressly, specifically and
comprehensively sets forth that health benefit
contribution levels become negotiable in the "next
collective negotiations agreement after . . . full
implementation" of the four-tiered level of employee
contributions is achieved.
Therefore, depending on the length of the successor
agreement that the Board and the Association agree to,
Article XVII.A.1 [of the CNA] may be preempted by
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2. For example, if the parties agree
to a contract with a one-year term, Article XVII.A.1
A-1694-17T4
12
would be preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2 from July
1, 2014 to June 30, 2015, the final year of employee
contributions at Tier 4 levels. However, it would not
be preempted in the "next" agreement when employee
contribution levels become negotiable. Alternatively,
if the parties agree to a multi-year successor agreement,
the express language of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2 would
preempt Article XVII.A.1 for the first year of the
successor agreement as well as any additional years in
the agreement until the "next" agreement when
employee contribution levels would become
negotiable.
....
The parties' 2014-2018 CNA is not the "next collective
negotiations agreement after . . . full implementation of
the contribution levels" within the meaning of N.J.S.A.
18A:16-17.2. As the [T]ier [4] contribution level was
reached in the first year of the parties' 2014-2018 CNA,
the "next collective negotiations" agreement within the
meaning of that statute will be the agreement that
succeeds the 2014-2018 CNA. Nothing in Chapter 78
pertaining to employee health care contributions
suggests an alternative construction, and any other
interpretation fails to give meaning to the specific terms
set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2.
[In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2018-
14. 44 N.J.P.E.R. ¶ 49, 2017 N.J. PERC LEXIS 82 at
13-14 (2017).]
Hence, PERC determined Chapter 78 dictated that Association members'
would contribute at the Tier 4 level during the entirety of the 2014-2018 CNA
A-1694-17T4
13
even though they had contributed at that level in the agreement's first year. Id.
at 15.
II
Before us, the Association, supported by amicus curiae Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, contends that PERC erred in interpreting
Chapter 78 to determine that the Tier 4 health insurance contribution level
should continue to apply throughout the last three years of the 2014-2018 CNA.
Considering that its members contributed at the Tiers 1 through 3 levels under
the 2011-2014 CNA and contributed at the Tier 4 level in the first year of the
2014-2018 CNA in accordance with Chapter 78, the Association maintains the
collectively bargained contribution rate of 1.5% should be in effect.
Initially, the Association points out that this court should not afford any
special deference to PERC's interpretation of Chapter 78 because the legislation
does not fall within the Employer-Employee Relations Act (the Act), N.J.S.A.
34:13A-1 to -43, which is the source of PERC's jurisdiction. Concerning the
particulars of the agency's interpretation, the Association contends PERC
distorted Chapter 78 to give it broader application "than its actual wording,"
thereby frustrating the policy preference for collective bargaining under the Act.
The Association maintains Chapter 78 does not satisfy the well-settled
A-1694-17T4
14
requirement that in order for a statute to preempt collective bargaining on terms
and conditions of employment – as here, for health insurance coverage – it must
clearly do so. See Bethlehem Twp. Bd. Education v. Bethlehem Twp. Educ.
Ass'n, 91 N.J. 38, 48 (1982); Council of N.J. State Coll. Locals v. State Bd. of
Higher Educ., 91 N.J. 18, 30 (1982). The Association further argues Chapter 78
does not "state that a multi[-]year successor CNA that begins at Tier 4
contribution levels must continue at Tier 4 level[] for any, let alone all,
remaining years of the agreement." 6
To determine whether the parties were allowed to implement the
negotiated 1.5% health insurance contribution level for the last three years of
the 2014-2018 CNA after having carried out the Tier 1 through 3 contribution
levels in the 2011-2014 CNA and the Tier 4 contribution level in the first year
of the 2014-2018 CNA, we must decide if PERC properly decided that Chapter
6
The Association also contends that after PERC consolidated the parties' scope
petitions, it was disadvantaged when PERC extended the due dates for the
Board's brief, which gave the Board the opportunity to submit a sur-reply, and
prevented it from submitting a reply brief. This contention is without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We merely
state that PERC properly exercised its discretion under N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(b) to
set forth a briefing schedule, and we see no prejudice to the Association's ability
to fully present its legal arguments.
A-1694-17T4
15
78 usurped the parties of their ability to collectively bargain the contribution
level.
When reviewing a PERC ruling, we give deference to the agency's
interpretation of the Act "unless its interpretations are plainly unreasonable, . . .
contrary to the language of the Act, or subversive of the Legislature's intent [.]"
N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. AFSCME, Council 73, 150 N.J. 331, 352 (1997). In other
words, we will only disturb a PERC decision that "is clearly demonstrated to be
arbitrary or capricious." City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers
Benevolent Ass'n, 154 N.J. 555, 568 (1998) (citations omitted). Yet, in this
case, we "owe no particular deference to PERC's interpretation of Chapter[] . . .
78," because despite "affect[ing] employer/employee relations, PERC is not
charged with administering [the law]." New Brunswick Mun. Emps. Ass'n, 453
N.J. Super. at 413.
In determining the interpretation of a statute, our review is de novo. State
v. Frank, 445 N.J. Super. 98, 105 (App. Div. 2016). It is well settled that a
primary purpose of "statutory interpretation is to determine and 'effectuate the
Legislature's intent.'" State v. Rivastineo, 447 N.J. Super. 526, 529 (App. Div.
2016) (quoting State v. Shelley, 205 N.J. 320, 323 (2011)). We start with
considering "the plain 'language of the statute, giving the terms used therein
A-1694-17T4
16
their ordinary and accepted meaning.'" Ibid. And where "the Legislature's
chosen words lead to one clear and unambiguous result, the interpretive process
comes to a close, without the need to consider extrinsic aids." Rivastineo, 447
N.J. Super. at 529. Hence, we do "not 'rewrite a plainly-written enactment of
the Legislature [or] presume that the Legislature intended something other than
that expressed by way of the plain language.'" Ibid. (quoting Marino v. Marino,
200 N.J. 315, 329 (2009) (alteration in original)).
Yet, a statute's plain language "should not be read in isolation, but in
relation to other constituent parts so that a sensible meaning may be given to the
whole of the legislative scheme." Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City,
209 N.J. 558, 572 (2012). "'[W]hen all is said and done, the matter of statutory
construction . . . will not justly turn on literalisms, technisms or the so -called
formal rules of interpretation; it will justly turn on the breadth of the objectives
of the legislation and the commonsense of the situation.'" J.H. v. R&M
Tagliareni, LLC, 454 N.J. Super. 174, 187 (2018) (quoting Jersey City Chapter,
P.O.P.A. v. Jersey City, 55 N.J. 86, 100 (1969)). Thus, "where a literal
interpretation would create a manifestly absurd result, contrary to public policy,
the spirit of the law should control." Hubbard v. Reed, 168 N.J. 387, 392 (2001)
(quoting Turner v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 162 N.J. 75, 84 (1999)); see also
A-1694-17T4
17
Gallagher v. Irvington, 190 N.J. Super. 394, 397 (App. Div. 1983) ("[a]n absurd
result must be avoided in interpreting a statute.").
Applying these principles, we begin with the understanding that the right
to negotiate health insurance contribution rates can be barred if "fully or
partially preempted by statute or regulation . . . ." In re Local 195 IFPTE, 88
N.J. 393, 404 (1982). In our examination of Chapter 78, we do not take issue
with the position of the Board and the amicus curiae of the New Jersey School
Boards Association that PERC has interpreted the plain language of Chapter 78
to reach its decision that the parties were preempted from implementing the
1.5% contribution rate in the last three years of the 2014-2018 CNA.
The unambiguous language of the first sentence of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-17.2
provides that Chapter 78 Tier 4 contribution rates shall be deemed the status quo
in any negotiations after full implementation of Chapter 78 rates. In this case,
full implementation of Chapter 78 did not occur until the end of the 2014-2015
school year, which was the first year of the 2014-2018 CNA. Thus, when the
parties were negotiating the 2014-2018 CNA, they were not negotiating "the
next collective negotiations agreement to be executed after the employees in that
unit have reached full implementation of the premium share" and the terms on
A-1694-17T4
18
health care contributions were not subject to collective negotiations. N.J.S.A.
18A:16-17.2.
That said, the parties' actions are telling. After the Tier 4 contribution
level was deducted from the Association members' salaries in the first year of
the successor agreement, the Association members' contribution level in the
second year of that agreement was initially based on 1.5% of their salary at the
start of the second year on July 1, 2015. It was not until January 6, 2016, when
the Board made salary deductions at the Tier 4 level, with the intention to
continue to do so through the end of the 2014-2018 CNA, and to later recoup
the uncollected Tier 4 level contributions retroactive to July 1, 2015, based upon
PERC's interpretation of Chapter 78 as held in Clementon Bd. of Education.
Clearly, the parties did not contemplate that Chapter 78 would preempt the 1.5%
contribution rate covering the last three years of the 2014-2018 CNA when that
agreement was reached. It is evident that they believed Chapter 78 had been
fully implemented because the Association members made all of their Tier 1
through 4 contributions – albeit over two separate collective bargaining
agreements.
Under these circumstances, interpreting Chapter 78 to require the Tier 4
contribution level for the remaining three years of the 2014-2018 CNA after the
A-1694-17T4
19
Association members contributed at that level in the first year of that CNA
creates an absurd result. Association members had previously contributed at
Tiers 1 through 4. To require them to contribute at the Tier 4 level over the
entirety of the 2014-2018 CNA, and not just the one year they did for July 1,
2014 through June 30, 2015, is contrary to the clear intent that public employees
make these statutorily imposed increases over the course of four years.
For PERC to recognize that the Association could have avoided the Tier
4 contribution level for four years by having a one-year agreement and a three-
year agreement, but not allow them to avoid that draconian impact because they
did not do so in this case, is shortsighted. Based upon the parties' conduct, it is
apparent that if they had the benefit of PERC's ruling in Clementon Bd. of Educ.
when they were negotiating the 2014-2018 CNA, they would have entered into
a one-year agreement for 2014-2015, providing for a Tier 4 contribution level,
and a three-year agreement for 2015-2018, providing for 1.5% contribution
level. See N.J.S.A. 18A:29-4.1 (permitting school boards to adopt "a one, two,
three, four, or five year salary policy . . . for all full-time teaching staff members
. . . ."7).
7
This is exactly what the parties did in Clementon Bd. of Educ., resulting in
our determination that their appeal was moot. Clementon Bd. of Educ., slip op.
at 10-13.
A-1694-17T4
20
We feel constrained here to put aside the procedural gymnastics of a one-
year agreement and a three-year agreement to reach a conclusion that is
equitable. Association members fully contributed at the Tier 1 through 4 levels
as contemplated by Chapter 78. Under the circumstances of this case, it is
contrary to the spirit of Chapter 78 to force the Association members to make
Tier 4 contributions for health insurance coverage for four years instead of just
one year. Consequently, the matter is remanded to PERC to fashion and
implement an appropriate remedial mechanism within sixty days to refund
Association members for all of their health insurance contributions exceeding
1.5% of their salaries for the pay periods covering July 1, 2015 through June 30,
2018.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-1694-17T4
21