BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND COUNTY OF BERGEN VS. POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (L-3627-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-0485-16T2/A-0486-16T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Bergen County and PBA Local 49 were parties to a long-standing collective bargaining agreement (CBA); a 2014 CBA extension specified that if the County police were "merged/consolidated" into the Sheriff’s Office certain prior salary provisions would become retroactively operative effective Jan. 1, 2014.
- In 2013–2015 the County undertook legislative and administrative steps (ordinances, a 2015 memorandum of agreement) to transfer operational and administrative authority over the County Police to the Sheriff, describing the unit as the "Bergen County Sheriff, Bureau of Police Services," but stating the Police would remain a separate unit overseen by the Sheriff.
- PBA 49 filed a grievance (Feb. 2016) asserting the County Police had been merged into the Sheriff’s Office and thus officers were entitled to retroactive pay under the 2014 extension; the grievance advanced to PERC for an arbitrator.
- The County sought a court declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent arbitration, arguing no merger occurred (only a realignment) and the salary provision therefore was not triggered.
- The trial court denied the injunction and dismissed the declaratory judgment action, holding the CBA committed interpretation disputes to arbitration; this appeal followed. The Appellate Division affirmed and vacated the stay of arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides whether the County Police were "merged/consolidated" so as to trigger the 2014 salary provision? | County: Court should decide (seek declaratory relief and injunction) because no merger occurred. | PBA 49: Arbitrator should decide under the CBA's grievance/arbitration clause. | Held: Arbitrator must decide; the CBA confers interpretive disputes to arbitration. |
| Whether filing a declaratory judgment can bypass arbitration | County: Declaratory relief appropriate to resolve contract construction. | PBA 49: Parties agreed disputes over interpretation go to arbitration; court cannot sidestep that agreement. | Held: Declaratory action cannot avoid agreed arbitration; matter referred to arbitrator. |
| Whether an alleged admission by PBA counsel or factual labels (realignment vs. merger) are for the court | County: Admission and factual characterizations show no merger and should be considered by court. | PBA 49: These are evidentiary/factual matters for arbitrator to weigh in interpreting the CBA. | Held: Those contentions are for the arbitrator to consider in the interpretation. |
| Whether questions of law/fact or managerial prerogative bar arbitration | County: Argues court should decide legal/factual threshold and managerial prerogative may limit arbitration. | PBA 49: Parties may agree to arbitrate questions of law or fact; no public policy or managerial-prerogative bar here. | Held: Parties validly agreed to arbitrate interpretation issues; no public-policy/managerial-prerogative exception shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 880 v. N.J. Transit Bus Operations, Inc., 200 N.J. 105 (2009) (where CBA confers interpretive power to arbitrators, arbitrator decides scope/jurisdiction questions)
- Standard Motor Freight, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 49 N.J. 83 (1967) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural arbitrability; court’s inquiry is whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
- Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., 168 N.J. 124 (2001) (arbitration agreements are contracts; interpret by plain language)
- Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479 (1992) (parties may agree to submit questions of law to arbitrators)
- City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n, 154 N.J. 555 (1998) (limits on arbitrability include public policy and managerial prerogative)