IN THE MATTER OF RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4178-19
IN THE MATTER OF RUTGERS,
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW JERSEY,
Respondent-Respondent,
and
AAUP – BIOMEDICAL AND
HEALTH SCIENCES OF NEW
JERSEY,
Respondent-Respondent,
and
ESTATE OF DR. GAETANO G.
SPINNATO,
Charging Party-Appellant.
______________________________
Argued January 25, 2022 – Decided October 3, 2022
Before Judges DeAlmeida and Smith.
On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission, PERC No. 2019-031.
Nicolette G. DeSimone argued the cause for appellant
(Bio & Laracca, PC, attorneys; Sebastian M. Bio and
Nicolette G. DeSimone, on the brief).
James P. Lidon argued the case for respondent Rutgers,
the State University of New Jersey (McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, attorneys; James P.
Lidon, of counsel and on the brief).
Patricia A. Villanueva argued the cause for respondent
AAUP, Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey
(Weissman & Mintz, LLC, attorneys; Patricia A.
Villanueva, on the brief).
John A. Boppert, Deputy General Counsel, argued the
cause for respondent New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission (Christine Lucarelli, General
Counsel, attorney; John A. Boppert, on the statement in
lieu of brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DeALMEIDA, J.A.D.
Charging party Estate of Dr. Gaetano G. Spinnato (Estate) 1 appeals from
the March 26, 2020 final agency decision of the Public Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) sustaining a decision by its Director of Unfair Practices
(Director) not to issue a complaint alleging unfair labor practices under the New
Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -64,
1
Dr. Spinnato died after filing the notice of appeal. We entered an order
pursuant to R. 4:34-1 substituting the Estate as the charging party.
A-4178-19
2
against Spinnato's employer, respondent Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey (Rutgers), and his majority representative, respondent AAUP –
Biomedical and Health Sciences of New Jersey (AAUP). We affirm.
I.
Spinnato was a professor at the Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, a
public entity. He was included in a faculty collective negotiations unit of
AAUP, which was a party to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with
Rutgers. Spinnato held a .8 full-time appointment and was scheduled to work
four days a week. He was generally not scheduled to work on Mondays.
Pursuant to the CNA, AAUP filed a step-one grievance on behalf of
Spinnato with Rutgers's Office of Academic Labor Relations (OALR), alleging
that Rutgers breached Article IX of the agreement. That provision states that in
addition to four float holidays:
[f]aculty unit members . . . shall be entitled to the
following holidays: New Year's Day, Martin Luther
King[,] Jr. Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day after
Thanksgiving and Christmas Day.
AAUP argued that Article IX entitled faculty members to the equivalent of eight
holidays each year. Thus, AAUP argued, faulty members, such as Spinnato,
who are not scheduled to work on a designated holiday, many of which are on
A-4178-19
3
Mondays, are entitled to compensatory time off that could be used on a regularly
scheduled workday.
The Executive Director of the OALR denied the grievance. In a written
decision, the Executive Director reasoned that the CNA "lists the specific
holidays that the unit members are entitled to; it does not state that every unit
member is entitled to eight holidays." Rutgers interpreted the CNA to pay unit
members for a holiday only if they are scheduled to work on a holiday
enumerated in the agreement.
AAUP sought arbitration. Although an arbitration hearing was scheduled,
AAUP, over Spinnato's objection, decided to adjourn the arbitration indefinitely
to address the issue of holiday compensation time in collective negotiations for
the successor agreement. The CNA give AAUP, not the individual grievant, the
right to proceed to arbitration if it is not satisfied with the disposition of the
step-one grievance. AAUP informed Spinnato of its decision on July 2, 2018.
On or about July 11, 2018, Spinnato filed unfair labor practice charges
with PERC against Rutgers and AAUP. He alleged Rutgers's denial of his step-
one grievance and the union's decision to hold the arbitration in abeyance while
it addressed the holiday compensation time issue through collective negotiations
A-4178-19
4
constituted unfair labor practices. On October 25, 2018, Spinnato withdrew
these charges.
On January 11, 2019, a Rutgers employee sent Spinnato an email stating:
You authorized the deduction of union dues from your
paycheck. The University inadvertently failed to
deduct dues from your July 27, 2018 paycheck. As a
result, the University will be deducting the July 27 dues
from your January 25, 2019 and February 22, 2019
paychecks and will equally divide the deduction
between these two paychecks. The University
apologizes for this inconvenience.
Spinnato responded with an email directing Rutgers not to deduct union dues
from his pay. He stated that he had repeatedly told AAUP he was withdrawing
from the union, but his withdrawal had not been effectuated.
On March 6, and 13, 2019, Spinnato again filed unfair labor practice
charges with PERC against Rutgers and AAUP. He alleged Rutgers denied him
compensatory time off for twenty-three holidays since 2014 that coincided with
his scheduled days off and that the university made several mistakes in denying
his grievance. He also alleged that AAUP held the arbitration in abeyance
without his consent and refused to process his withdrawal from the union.
On April 5, 2019, the AAUP's Executive Director sent Spinnato an email
stating that the union had processed his request to be dropped from membership.
A-4178-19
5
He advised Spinnato that members ordinarily cannot resign until July 1 each
year, but that the union had made an exception for Spinnato.
On January 21, 2020, the Director issued a written opinion refusing to file
a complaint alleging unfair labor practices against Rutgers and AAUP. The
Director concluded that Spinnato's allegations regarding holiday compensation
time are time-barred because they were filed after the six-month filing deadline
established in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c). The Director found that as of July 2,
2018, Spinnato was aware of Rutgers's interpretation of the CNA and the
AAUP's decision to hold the arbitration in abeyance in favor of collective
negotiations. He did not file the charges with PERC, however, until March 6,
2019, well more than six months later. The Director noted that Spinnato elected
to withdraw the previously filed timely charges concerning holiday
compensation time.
In addition, the Director determined that even if Spinnato had filed the
charges in a timely fashion, they failed to meet the standard for issuance of a
complaint. He reasoned that PERC does not have jurisdiction over disputes
solely involving the interpretation of a CNA, which was the case with respect to
Spinnato's holiday compensation time allegations. In addition, the Director
concluded that only the majority representative of public employees can bring a
A-4178-19
6
claim before PERC alleging an unfair labor practice under the relevant
provisions of the Act. The Director also found that a public employer does not
violate the Act where a majority representative of its employees refuses to
process a grievance to arbitration because there is no right to arbitration.
The Director found that the only possible claim Spinnato could bring
before PERC with respect to the holiday compensation time was an allegation
that AAUP breached its duty of fair representation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.7. The Director determined, however, that AAUP's decision that the issue was
more suitable for resolution through collective negotiations was within the
reasonable discretion afforded to unions to determine how best to represent their
members. He noted that nothing in Spinnato's charge suggested the union made
its strategic decision based on an unlawful motive. Because Spinnato had not
alleged a valid claim regarding the grievance against AAUP with respect to
holiday compensation time, the Director reasoned, he also did not allege a valid
claim on this point against Rutgers.
With respect to Spinnato's allegations regarding his withdrawal from
AAUP, the Director found that Spinnato did not comply with the union
membership withdrawal procedures set forth in the Workplace Democracy
Enhancement Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.11 to -5.15, or the CNA. In addition, the
A-4178-19
7
Director concluded that a dispute concerning withdrawal from a union does not
constitute an unfair labor practice under the Act. Spinnato appealed the
Director's decision to PERC.
On March 26, 2020, PERC issued a final agency decision sustaining the
Director's refusal to issue a complaint against Rutgers and AAUP. PERC
rejected Spinnato's argument that the record contained proof that he was
prevented from timely re-filing his initial unfair labor practices charge. In
addition, PERC rejected Spinnato's argument that his dispute with Rutgers
regarding holiday compensatory time constituted a failure to negotiate in good
faith. PERC instead agreed with the Director's conclusion that Spinnato asserted
a grievance based on a breach of the CNA, over which the Commission lacks
statutory jurisdiction. PERC also agreed that Spinnato offered no convincing
factual or legal basis to conclude that the processing of his resignation from
AAUP constituted an unfair labor practice.
The appeal follows.
II.
"[W]e will not upset a State agency's determination in the absence of a
showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair
support in the evidence, or that it violated a legislative policy expressed or
A-4178-19
8
implicit in the governing statute." In re Camden Cty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super.
15, 22-23 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Cty. of Gloucester v.
PERC, 107 N.J. Super. 150, 156 (App. Div. 1969)). "Although an agency's
'interpretation of the statute it is charged with administering . . . is entitled to
great weight' . . . [appellate courts] will not yield to PERC if its interpretation is
'plainly unreasonable, contrary to the language of the Act, or subversive of the
Legislature's intent.'" Id. at 23 (quoting N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. AFSCME Council
73, 150 N.J. 331, 352 (1997)) (citation omitted).
PERC is charged with administering the Act and its interpretation of the
statute is entitled to substantial deference. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 150 N.J. at 352. It
has authority to issue a complaint where it appears that the charging party's
allegations, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the
Act. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c); N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. However,
no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair practice
occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the
charge unless the person aggrieved thereby was
prevented from filing such a charge in which event the
six-month period shall be computed from the day he
was no longer so prevented.
[N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c).]
Having carefully reviewed Spinnato's arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal principles, we affirm the March 26, 2020 final agency decision
A-4178-19
9
for the reasons stated by PERC and the Director in their thorough and well -
reasoned written opinions. Spinnato filed his charges concerning holiday
compensation time with PERC long after the six-month period established in
34:13A-5.4(c). Spinnato's claim he was prevented from filing his charges in a
timely fashion lacks any evidentiary support. In fact, the record establishes that
he was aware of AAUP's decision to hold the arbitration in abeyance on July 2,
2018.
We also agree with PERC's conclusion that the manner in which Rutgers
and AAUP processed Spinnato's request to withdraw from the union did not
violate the law and would not, even if not in compliance with the CNA or
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.11 to -5.15, constitute an unfair labor practice under the Act.
Affirmed.
A-4178-19
10