In re the City of Camden
429 N.J. Super. 309
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Camden entered a 2005-2008 CBA with IAFF Local 788; MRERA was enacted to address municipal distress and provide extraordinary state aid after declines in local revenue.
- A five-year COO term was extended to ten years under MRERA; governance and finances were structured around state funding and oversight.
- After failed successor negotiations, compulsory interest arbitration was invoked in 2010-2011 to set terms for a new contract.
- The arbitrator awarded 8.5% total wage increases over four years, stating the State must fund the City’s Fire Department budget and calling the State a fourth party to the arbitration.
- PERC affirmed the award; the City appealed, arguing the award violated statutory limits and the arbitrator’s authority.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court vacated the award, reversed PERC, and remanded for proceedings before a different arbitrator, holding the State could not be made a party or funder in the arbitration and finding statutory and process defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the arbitrator authorized to name the State as a fourth party and require funding? | City argues arbitrator exceeded authority by making the State a party to funding. | IAFF asserts arbitration could consider State funding as part of fiscal realities. | Arbitrator exceeded authority; State cannot be bound to fund; remand to a new arbitrator. |
| Did the award comply with health-care contribution statutes for employees? | Award improperly delayed and avoided statutory health-care contribution requirements. | Arbitrator’s language reflects a limited, prospective implementation within the term of the agreement. | Award vacated for noncompliance with 40A:10-21 and 40A:10-21.1. |
| Did the arbitrator provide a proper written analysis under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g) and 16(f)(5)? | Arbitrator failed to identify relevant factors and explain why others were not relevant. | Award’s reasoning reflects consideration of statutory factors and factual context. | Award vacated for lack of a reasoned explanation and failure to weigh factors adequately. |
| Should the case be remanded to the same or a different arbitrator? | Public concerns and arbitrator's evident misapplication justify a different arbitrator. | Remand to same arbitrator should suffice to cure deficiencies and avoid delay. | Remand to a different arbitrator is appropriate due to serious analytical failings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillsdale PBA Local 207 v. Borough of Hillsdale, 137 N.J. 71 (1994) (vacatur when not giving due weight to statutory criteria)
- In re Camden Cnty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15 (App.Div.2007) (appellate review of arbitration in public sector contexts)
- Irvington (S. Policemen’s Benevolent Ass’n v. Irvington), 80 N.J. 271 (1979) (public policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes; due weight to factors)
- Teaneck v. Teaneck Firemen’s Mut. Benevolent Ass’n Local No. 42, 353 N.J. Super. 289 (App.Div.2002) (public sector arbitration standards; review standards)
- Byrne v. City of Camden, 82 N.J. 133 (1980) (limits of judicial redress over legislative appropriations)