IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND FRATERNAL ORDEROF POLICE LODGE 91(PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION)
164 A.3d 433
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2017Background
- Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 91 (FOP) represented a newly certified bargaining unit of Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) investigators and sought an initial collective negotiations agreement (CNA).
- The matter went to interest arbitration to set terms of the first CNA; PERC adopted most of the arbitrator’s award in a final decision dated September 3, 2015.
- PERC had earlier issued an interlocutory decision (Feb. 13, 2015) directing the arbitrator to apply a statutory two percent cap on salary increases (N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7); FOP appealed that ruling.
- The State cross-appealed portions of the award challenging non-salary provisions (education reimbursement and leave, $300 clothing allowance, arbitration of minor discipline).
- The Appellate Division affirmed PERC’s application of the two percent cap to interest arbitration for a newly certified unit and upheld PERC’s confirmation of the non-salary provisions as not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (FOP) | Defendant's Argument (State/PERC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act permits interest arbitration for newly certified units and whether the 2% salary cap applies | The Act’s text limits interest arbitration and the 2% cap to situations where an existing CNA is expiring; thus it does not apply to a newly certified unit’s first CNA | PERC/State: The Act’s purpose—promoting interest arbitration and protecting public fisc—supports applying interest arbitration and the 2% cap to newly certified units | Applied the 2% cap to newly certified unit interest arbitration; affirmed PERC’s interpretation |
| Whether PERC’s interpretation of the statute is entitled to deference | FOP: Statutory text controls; PERC exceeded authority by extending the cap | PERC: Its interpretation is reasonable and consistent with legislative intent; courts should defer | Court deferred to PERC’s reasonable interpretation and affirmed |
| Validity of certain non-salary award terms (education reimbursement/leave, clothing allowance, arbitration of minor discipline) | FOP did not challenge these (State did) | State: These provisions were improper and PERC erred in confirming them | Court held PERC’s confirmations were not arbitrary or capricious; affirmed |
| Whether literal statutory reading producing different treatment for new units is permissible | FOP: Literal text governs; different treatment acceptable | PERC/State: Literal result would be absurd and frustrate purposes of Act; interpret to avoid absurdity | Court applied purposive construction to avoid absurd result; adopted PERC’s reading |
Key Cases Cited
- In re State, 443 N.J. Super. 380 (App. Div.) (agency decision standards and review)
- In re State, 114 N.J. 316 (1989) (purpose of Act to resolve law enforcement disputes via interest arbitration)
- Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202 (2014) (statutory interpretation to avoid absurd results)
- Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156 (1999) (interpret statutes consonant with drafter’s intent; avoid absurd constructions)
- In re Camden Cty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15 (App. Div. 2007) (deference to agency interpretation)