In the Matter of Union County College ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2993-22
IN THE MATTER OF
UNION COUNTY COLLEGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
and
UNION COUNTY COLLEGE
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
(AAUP),
Respondent-Respondent.
_____________________________
NEW JERSEY PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Argued June 4, 2024 – Decided July 3, 2024
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Puglisi.
On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission, Docket No. SN-2023-002.
Matthew Joseph Giacobbe argued the cause for
appellant (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs LLC,
attorneys; Matthew Joseph Giacobbe, of counsel and on
the briefs; Jessica Vanessa Henry, on the briefs).
Carl Levine (Levy Ratner, PC) argued the cause for
respondent Union County College Chapter of the
American Association of University Professors.
John Andrew Boppert, Deputy General Counsel, argued
the cause for respondent New Jersey Public
Employment Relations Commission (Christine R.
Lucarelli, General Counsel, attorney; John Andrew
Boppert, on the statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Union County College (College) appeals from the April 28,
2023, final determination of the Public Employment Relations Commission
(PERC) effectively denying its request to restrain arbitration of a grievance filed
by respondent Union County College Chapter of the American Association of
University College Professors (AAUP). We reverse.
In Union County College v. Union County College Chapter of the
American Ass'n of University Professors, No. A-3564-19 (App. Div. May 13,
2022), we detailed the underlying dispute which we will not recite at length here.
To briefly recapitulate, the College appealed from the
A-2993-22
2
Chancery Division order confirming the December 23,
2019[,] arbitration award prohibiting the assignment of
Associate Professor JoAnne Kennedy to the College's
Academic Learning Center (ALC) and denying [the
College's] application to vacate the award. [AAUP] is
an employee representative within the meaning of the
New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act
(EERA), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -39, and represents "all
full-time instructional and professional library staff"
employed by plaintiff, including Kennedy. [The
College] and [AAUP] are parties to the collective
negotiations agreement (CNA) underlying the appeal.
After [the College] assigned Kennedy to the
ALC, [AAUP] filed a grievance on her behalf, alleging
[the College] violated various provisions of the CNA.
The matter proceeded to arbitration, resulting in an
arbitration award in [AAUP's] favor. Following the
adverse ruling, [the College] filed a complaint in the
Chancery Division seeking to vacate the award.
Among other things, [the College] argued that because
it has the non-negotiable—and thus non-arbitrable—
managerial prerogative to determine faculty
assignments, the matter should be sent to [PERC] for a
scope of negotiations determination. Given [the
College's] failure to file a scope of negotiations petition
with PERC before proceeding to arbitration, the trial
court rejected [the College's] request and confirmed the
award. We vacate[d] the court's order and transfer[red]
the matter to PERC.
[Id. at 1-2 (footnote omitted).]
We explained that "PERC is charged with administering the EERA and
has '"primary jurisdiction"' to determine '"whether the subject matter of a
particular dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations."'" Id. at 16-17
A-2993-22
3
(quoting In re Cnty. of Atl., 445 N.J. Super. 1, 20 (App. Div. 2016)). We pointed
out that "[a]lthough [the College] did not file a scope petition with PERC before
arbitration, it presented the defense to the arbitrator and the judge," and "'no
case has held that the failure of an employer to file a pre-arbitration scope of
negotiations petition, standing alone, automatically precludes a post-arbitration
challenge to an arbitration award based on scope of negotiations
considerations.'" Id. at 21 (quoting In re Twp. of Ocean Bd. of Educ., P.E.R.C.
No. 83-164, 9 N.J.P.E.R. ¶ 14181, at 7, 1983 WL 862922 (1983)).
Thus, we reasoned that despite the procedural posture of the case, "the
preservation of PERC's primary jurisdiction over scope of negotiations issues
require[d] transfer of the scope issue to PERC." Id. at 22-23. In stressing that
our cases endorse such a procedure, we stated:
In [City of Newark v. Newark Council 21, Newark
Chapter, New Jersey Civil Service Ass'n, 320 N.J.
Super. 8 (App. Div. 1999)], Judge Pressler explained,
it has long been settled that where
grievance arbitration of a particular matter
is challenged by the public employer on the
ground that the subject of the grievance
constitutes a management prerogative and
is hence not negotiable in the first instance,
the jurisdiction of PERC is primary and the
trial court should defer to PERC.
A-2993-22
4
[Union Cnty. Coll., slip op. at 22-23 (quoting City of
Newark, 320 N.J. Super. at 17).]
On July 28, 2022, the College filed a scope of negotiations petition with
PERC seeking an order restraining arbitration and voiding the December 23,
2019, arbitration award sustaining the grievance. PERC is comprised of seven
members, see N.J.S.A. 34:13A-4, but two of the seats were vacant at the time of
the vote and one of the five seated commissioners recused himself from
participating in the decision. The vote of the remaining four commissioners on
PERC's draft decision essentially upholding the College's position that its
decision with respect to Kennedy "preeminently concern[ed] matters of
educational policy that [were] not mandatorily negotiable" ended in "an
unbreakable tie." 1 Under PERC's protocol, the tie vote resulted in the
Commission's inability "to take any action on the College's scope petition" and
effectively functions as a denial of the request to restrain arbitration. See
Commission's Notice to Interested Parties, Resolving Tie Votes in Certain Scope
of Negotiation Cases (Dec. 23, 2014),
https://www.nj.gov/perc/documents/ProtocolResolvingVotes.pdf (establishing
that to resolve tie votes due to the recusal of one or more commissioners, "the
1
On July 24, 2023, we granted the College's motion to supplement the record
with the draft decision.
A-2993-22
5
Commission's final action is either an interim or recommended decision made
by a Commission designee or officer (e.g. Hearing Examiner) or the status quo
of the parties' dispute that existed at the time the proceeding before the
Commission was initiated"). Thus, PERC's failure to render a decision based on
its tie-vote protocol effectively rendered the College's scope petition rejected
and returned the parties to the status quo under the arbitration award.
In this ensuing appeal, the College maintains that its decision "to transfer
and assign personnel" is a "'managerial duty'" and "involve[s] matters of
educational policy," thus rendering the decision "neither negotiable nor
arbitrable." (quoting Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of
Educ., 78 N.J. 144, 156 (1978)). The College reasons that neither "managerial
prerogative" nor "responsibility for educational policy" can be "contract[ed]
away," and our courts have "uph[eld] a [c]ollege's unfettered right" to assign
and deploy its personnel in promotion of its educational objectives.
AAUP counters that the College's decision affects Kennedy's "terms and
conditions of employment" and constitutes only a "de minimis impingement" on
"the College's managerial prerogatives." Specifically, AAUP challenges the
College's "full-time, semester-long assignment [of Kennedy] to the ALC"
because it is "a non-teaching assignment" that falls outside Kennedy's "defined
A-2993-22
6
job duties" and "affects [Kennedy's] working conditions." Further, AAUP
suggests that, as noted by the arbitrator, the College's reassignment of Kennedy
to the ALC was disciplinary in nature and thus arbitrable.
We will not overturn PERC's determinations "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 implicit in the
governing statute." Commc'ns Workers of America, Loc. 1034 v. N.J. State
Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n, Loc. 203, 412 N.J. Super. 286, 291 (App. Div.
2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Camden Cnty.
Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15, 22-23 (App. Div. 2007) (emphasis omitted)).
However, when PERC's decision is an interpretation of a statute or a
determination of "a strictly legal issue," we review the determination de novo.
In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. 1, 17 (2020) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., PFRS, 219 N.J. 369, 380
(2014)). Because PERC did not reach the merits of the College's scope of
negotiations petition, we employ a de novo standard of review.
In adopting the EERA, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -64, the Legislature
recognized public employees' "legitimate interest in engaging in collective
negotiations about issues that affect 'terms and conditions of employment.'"
A-2993-22
7
Loc. 195, IFPTE, AFL-CIO v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 401 (1982) (quoting N.J.S.A.
34:13A-5.3). However, unlike their private-sector counterparts, the "scope of
negotiations" for public sector employees "is more limited" due to government's
"unique responsibility to make and implement public policy." Id. at 401-02; see
also, e.g., Bd. of Educ. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg'l Sch. Dist. v.
Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg'l Educ. Ass'n, 81 N.J. 582, 588 n.1 (1980);
Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 162.
As a result, subjects of public employment negotiation are deemed to be
either "'mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment [or] non-
negotiable matters of governmental policy.'" Loc. 195, 88 N.J. at 402 (quoting
Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 162). In Local 195, our Supreme Court
reiterated a three-part test for determining the scope of negotiations, explaining
that
a subject is negotiable between public employers and
employees when (1) the item intimately and directly
affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2)
the subject has not been fully or partially 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
A-2993-22
8
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 College urges non-negotiability under the third prong of the Local
195 standard. Several cases inform the discussion of whether the reassignment
of a member of the faculty at an educational institution falls within "'the exercise
of inherent management prerogatives pertaining to the determination of
governmental policy.'" Id. at 404 (quoting Paterson Police PBA Loc. v. City of
Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 86 (1981)). In Board of Education of City of Englewood
v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1 (1973), our Supreme Court reconciled
provisions of this State's education law (Title 18A) with the EERA. Id. at 6-7.
There, the Englewood Board of Education employed four special education
teachers who customarily worked between 8:45 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Id. at 3.
Students attended school from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and non-special education
teachers worked between 8:45 a.m. and 3:15 p.m. Ibid. Nothing in the teachers'
written agreement distinguished between special education teachers and non-
special education teachers. Id. at 3-4. Ultimately, the Englewood Board of
Education unilaterally lengthened the four special education teachers' hours to
A-2993-22
9
match those of the other teachers "without any additional compensation." Id. at
4.
Through their union, the Englewood Teachers Association, the four
special education teachers filed grievances and sought arbitration under the
agreement. Id. at 4-5. In response, the Board filed a complaint in the Chancery
Division seeking to restrain arbitration. Id. at 3. In reversing the Chancery
Division's judgment restraining arbitration, our Supreme Court explained that
"the hours and compensation of the individual grievant teachers were suitable
for negotiation and grievance procedures including ultimate arbitration as
provided for in the Englewood agreement." Id. at 7-8. The Court reasoned that
"the Association . . . s[ought] nothing more than contractual interpretations
which would . . . preclude unilateral uncompensated extension of the working
hours of the four special education teachers." Id. at 8. Therefore, "[t]h[ose]
interpretations would directly and most intimately affect the employment terms
and conditions" of the teachers "without affecting any major educational
policies," and "would appear to be eminently suitable for arbitral
determination." Ibid.In a parallel decision, the Court determined that a local board of
education's determination "that it would be educationally desirable to
A-2993-22
10
consolidate [two chairmanships] into a newly created [chairmanship]" was "not
a proper subject of either arbitration or mandatory negotiation under N.J.S.A.
34:13A-5.3." Dunellen Bd. of Educ. v. Dunellen Educ. Ass'n, 64 N.J. 17, 29,
31 (1973). The Dunellen Court held that the consolidation "represents a matter
predominantly of educational policy within management's exclusive
prerogatives" and "had no effect, or at most only remote and incidental effect,
on the 'terms and conditions of employment' contemplated by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-
5.3." Id. at 29-30. See also Burlington Cnty. Coll. Fac. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs., 64
N.J. 10, 16 (1973) (holding that "the college calendar is not a proper subject of
mandatory negotiation and that the lower court's holding to the contrary was
erroneous").
We applied these principles in Ramapo-Indian Hills Education Ass'n v.
Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District Board of Education, 176
N.J. Super. 35 (App. Div. 1980), stressing that "[t]he days and hours of work by
individual teaching staff members, their workloads and compensation are
traditionally negotiable terms and conditions of employment." Id. at 42 (citing
Burlington Cnty. Coll. Fac. Ass'n, 64 N.J. at 14); see also Bd. of Educ. of
Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 589; Englewood Bd. of Educ., 64 N.J. at 6-7.
However, the mere fact that the subject of negotiations
concerns hours, workload and compensation does not
A-2993-22
11
in itself make them mandatorily negotiable terms and
conditions of employment. To be mandatorily
negotiable, the terms and conditions of employment
must not "'significantly interfere with the exercise of
inherent management prerogatives pertaining to the
determination of government policy.'"
[Ramapo-Indian Hills Educ. Ass'n, 176 N.J. Super. at
42-43 (citation omitted) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of
Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 590-91).]
In Ramapo-Indian Hills, we determined that a local board of education's
decision to combine a music teacher's position with the responsibilities of an
extracurricular band director was within its "managerial prerogative" and
arbitration concerning the "after-school working hours could affect the quality
of these musical activities and would preclude the exercise of the managerial
prerogative to assign personnel." Id. at 47. Therefore, we separated the issue
of "hours of employment [and] workload" from "compensation," and held that
the former was not "mandatorily negotiable," but the latter was arbitrable. Id.
at 48-49.
When considering the competing interests of the State and its employees,
our courts "weigh[] [and] balanc[e]" the "terms and conditions of employment"
in relation to "their interference with managerial prerogatives." Bd. of Educ. of
Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 591. "[T]erms and conditions of employment
are those matters which intimately and directly affect the work and welfare of
A-2993-22
12
public employees and on which negotiated agreement would not significantly
interfere with the exercise of inherent management prerogatives pertaining to
the determination of governmental policy." State v. State Supervisory Emps.
Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 67 (1978). On the other hand, "[w]hen the dominant issue is
an educational goal, there is no obligation to negotiate and subject the matter,
including its impact, to binding arbitration" even if it "may affect or impact upon
the employees' terms and conditions of employment." Bd. of Educ. of
Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 591.
In Board of Education of Township of Bernards v. Bernards Township
Education Ass'n, 79 N.J. 311 (1979),
the dispute involved the withholding of a teacher's
salary increment by a board of education "for
inefficiency or other good cause." N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14.
Clearly the increment directly affected a fundamental
term of the teacher's employment, his compensation.
However, the board's decision concerned the quality of
the educational system and was an "essential
managerial prerogative" which outweighed the impact
on the individual's term of employment. Accordingly,
it was held that the decision to withhold the incentive
pay increase from a particular teacher could not be
bargained away.
[Bd. of Educ. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 591-
92 (citation omitted) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of
Bernards, 79 N.J. at 321).]
A-2993-22
13
Most illuminating, however, is the Court's decision in Ridgefield Park
Education Ass'n, where a teacher objected to a transfer. 78 N.J. at 150-51.
There, the Court wrote:
The selection of the school in which a teacher works or
the grade and subjects which he teaches undoubtedly
have an appreciable effect on his welfare. However,
even assuming that this effect could be considered
direct and intimate, we find that this aspect of the
transfer decision is insignificant in comparison to its
relationship to the Board's managerial duty to deploy
personnel in the manner which it considers most likely
to promote the overall goal of providing all students
with a thorough and efficient education. Thus, we find
that the issue of teacher transfers is one on which
negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with
a public employer's discharge of inherent managerial
responsibilities. Accordingly, it is not a matter as to
which collective negotiation is mandatory.
[Id. at 156.]
Such cases have led to the recognition that "decisions to hire, retain,
promote, transfer, assign and dismiss are not negotiable." Rutgers, State Univ.
v. Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters, 256 N.J. Super. 104, 116 (App. Div.
1992); see also Council of N.J. State Coll. Locs. v. State Bd. of Higher Educ.,
91 N.J. 18, 32-33 (1982) (explaining that "the public employer's substantive
decision to transfer or assign employees" "constitutes inherent managerial
prerogatives" (emphasis omitted)).
A-2993-22
14
Here, the College is a public educational institution with a mandate to
ensure its students' academic success. As such, its governing body must make
decisions "critical to the [College's] goal of excellence in the quality of its
faculty and its overriding concern for quality of education offered its students."
Rutgers, State Univ., 256 N.J. Super. at 108. To that end, the College is
committed to supporting its students' ability to matriculate, advance through
their courses, and graduate.
Kennedy, as an employee of the College, furthers that educational
objective through her work as an associate professor. As we recounted in our
unpublished opinion, when Kennedy's performance as an instructor came into
question "based on student complaints, requests to withdraw from her classes,
and completion rates that were consistently lower than her peers," the College
was obligated to examine whether her then assignment best fit its educational
objectives and policy. Union Cnty. Coll., slip op. at 9. As a result, it was
determined that for the sake of the College, the students, and Kennedy's teaching
performance, Kennedy would be transferred to the ALC "as her full-time
assignment." Id. at 7.
"[T]he ALC 'offer[ed] tutoring support and academic support for
students . . . enrolled in classes at the college,'" id. at 8 (omission and second
A-2993-22
15
alteration in original), thereby assisting students in successfully completing their
courses and graduating. As such, the ALC is an important component for
students' success at the College. Critically, "similar to a faculty member
teaching a course, assignment to the ALC concluded once 'final exams [were]
concluded' for the semester," id. at 9 (alteration in original), and there was no
change in Kennedy's compensation.
The College transferred Kennedy and altered her duties based on what it
believed positively impacted the academic quality of the institution. Indeed, the
proffered purpose for Kennedy's transfer promoted the College's educational
policy and objectives. 2 Unlike Englewood, the College's decision did not affect
Kennedy's full-time status, 64 N.J. at 7-8, and unlike Ramapo-Indian Hills,
Kennedy's compensation was not altered, 176 N.J. Super. at 48-49. Although
AAUP argues the assignment violated the CNA in relation to instructional hours,
the argument relates to the duties of the position, rather than the compensable
2
Although AAUP asserts the College's purpose in transferring Kennedy was
disciplinary in nature, the arbitrator made no such finding and there was no
reduction in salary or rank. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-27 (granting PERC "the
authority to take reasonable action to effectuate the purposes of [the EERA]" if
it "determines that the basis for a transfer is predominately disciplinary"); see
also N.J.S.A. 34:13A-22 (defining "discipline" as "all forms of discipline,
except tenure charges filed pursuant to . . . N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 . . . , or the
withholding of increments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:29-14").
A-2993-22
16
hours of her employment. Cf. 176 N.J. Super. at 48-49. Because "the issue of
teacher transfers is one on which negotiated agreement would significantly
interfere with a public employer's discharge of inherent managerial
responsibilities," Kennedy's transfer is neither negotiable nor arbitrable.
Ridgefield, 78 N.J. at 156. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to PERC to
enter an order restraining arbitration concerning Kennedy's assignment to the
ALC, notwithstanding PERC's tie-vote.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed a specific argument, we
conclude our disposition makes it unnecessary or the argument lacks sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order restraining arbitration. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
A-2993-22
17