In re Probation Ass'n
121 A.3d 899
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- Appellants Peter Tortoreto and Robyn Ghee, probation officers and PANJ members, published campaign literature alleging union fiscal mismanagement and large payments to the union president during an internal union election.
- After losing the election, PANJ members filed disciplinary charges; a disciplinary committee heard evidence in appellants' absence and the union board sustained most charges.
- PANJ suspended Tortoreto for three years (plus a $1,000 fine) and suspended Ghee for six months and removed her as a local vice president; both could seek reinstatement after suspension.
- Appellants filed an unfair practice charge with PERC under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1), alleging the discipline interfered with their statutory rights to "assist" and participate in the union.
- PERC (via the Hearing Examiner and the Commission) dismissed the complaint as an internal union dispute beyond PERC's jurisdiction, relying on precedent that emphasized relief for expulsions or denial of membership.
- The appellate court reversed, holding PERC does have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether suspensions that bar participation in union affairs violate the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERC has jurisdiction to hear claims that temporary suspensions (not expulsions) that bar participation violate N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) | Suspensions that bar members from assisting/participating in union affairs interfere with statutory rights and may constitute unfair practice | Discipline arising from internal union governance is an intra-union matter outside PERC jurisdiction unless member is expelled or permanently excluded | Court: PERC has jurisdiction; suspensions that bar participation can implicate protected rights and may support unfair-practice claims |
| Whether PERC's interpretation denying jurisdiction over suspensions merits deference | Appellants: statutory language protects the right to "assist," which is infringed by exclusion from union participation regardless of permanence | PANJ/PERC: precedent limits PERC review to expulsions/denials of membership; deference to PERC consistent with prior decisions | Court: No deference where agency interpretation conflicts with statute/legislative intent; PERC's narrow reading undermines Act's protections and is reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.J. Turnpike Auth. v. AFSCME, Council 73, 150 N.J. 331 (1997) (limits on deference to agency interpretations when contrary to statute or legislative intent)
- In re Hunterdon Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 116 N.J. 322 (1989) (discussing comprehensive rights afforded public employees under the Employer-Employee Relations Act)
- Calabrese v. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n, Local No. 76, 157 N.J. Super. 139 (Law Div. 1978) (union may expel discordant members; standard is whether expulsion is arbitrary, capricious, or invidious)