In the Matter of County of Atlantic In the Matter of Township of Bridgewater (077447) (Statewide), 166 A.3d 1112

Background

Three CNAs (Atlantic County with FOP Lodge 34 and PBA Local 77; Bridgewater Township with PBA Local 174) provided automatic annual salary step/column increases and included language stating contract terms or provisions would continue until a successor agreement was negotiated.
Historically the employers continued paying step increments during hiatus periods between expired CNAs and successor agreements; Atlantic County continued this practice through multiple expirations until 2010.
In late 2010 Atlantic County notified the unions it would stop implementing step increases after contract expiration citing new fiscal constraints (Property Tax Levy Cap and Interest Arbitration Award Cap); Bridgewater took the same position after its CNA expired in 2012 following PERC’s Atlantic County decision.
Unions filed unfair-practice charges and grievances arguing cessation of step movement unlawfully altered a mandatory term and condition of employment in violation of the EERA.
PERC abandoned its historical “dynamic status quo” doctrine and dismissed the Atlantic County and Bridgewater claims; the Appellate Division reversed, relying on the dynamic status quo and mandatory negotiability of salary terms.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment on other grounds: the express contract language required continuation of the salary guides until successor agreements, so employers’ unilateral cessation violated the EERA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are salary step increments a mandatorily negotiable term/condition of employment?	Salary steps are part of compensation and thus mandatorily negotiable.	N/A (defense focused on statutory caps and doctrine abandonment).	Held: Yes; step increments are a mandatorily negotiable term.
Do the expired CNAs require continuation of salary guides during the hiatus?	Contract language and past practice demonstrate the parties intended continuation until successor agreements.	County/Township argued fiscal statutes and changed conditions permit suspension.	Held: The CNAs’ explicit continuation clauses require salary guides remain in effect until successor agreements.
Did the employers commit unfair labor practices by stopping increments before successor CNAs?	Stopping increments unilaterally altered a mandatory term without bargaining to impasse.	Employers claimed they were authorized to stop due to changed law/policy and PERC’s abandonment of the dynamic status quo.	Held: Employers committed unfair labor practices by altering contractually preserved terms without negotiating in good faith.
Could PERC permissibly abandon the dynamic status quo doctrine to allow employers not to fund increments post-expiration?	Unions: PERC improperly discarded a long-standing adjudicative doctrine.	PERC: Doctrine impractical post-recession; legislative changes justify abandonment.	Court did not decide broadly; avoided rulemaking question and resolved case on contract interpretation instead.

Key Cases Cited

Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (collective-bargaining terms may survive expiration if agreement explicitly provides)
In re Local 195, IFPTE, 88 N.J. 393 (three-part test for mandatory negotiability)
Robbinsville Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Washington Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 227 N.J. 192 (rates of pay are prime examples of mandatorily negotiable terms)
Borough of Keyport v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 222 N.J. 314 (wages/hours are terms and conditions of employment requiring negotiation)
In re Hunterdon Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 116 N.J. 322 (discussing negotiability and bargaining principles)
Bd. of Educ. v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 144 N.J. 16 (employer barred from unilaterally altering mandatory bargaining topics)