JO ANN SICA PAPPALARDO, ETC. VS. PEE WEE PREP, INC. VS. GARY NORGAARD, FISCAL AGENT (L-0899-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3065-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Four Hillsborough Township employees (a reading specialist, preschool assistant, and two instructional aides) sought tuition reimbursement for graduate courses; the Board denied approval as not related to employees' current or future job responsibilities.
- The employees filed grievances and the Association requested arbitration; the Board sought a scope-of-negotiations determination from PERC instead.
- PERC held on March 31, 2016 that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5(c) preempted arbitration because it imperatively limits tuition assistance to courses related to current or future job responsibilities.
- The Association appealed PERC’s decision to the Appellate Division challenging preemption and arguing legislative history and contract language supported negotiability.
- The Appellate Division reviewed deference to PERC on scope issues but noted it is not bound by agency statutory interpretations on purely legal questions.
- The court affirmed PERC, holding subsection (c) is express, specific, comprehensive, and leaves no discretion to the employer, so negotiation/arbitration is preempted; employees retain appeal routes to the board of education and Commissioner of Education.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5(c) preempts arbitration/collective negotiation over tuition reimbursement | The statute’s legislative history and contract references show the requirement is discretionary and thus negotiable | Subsection (c) is mandatory and sets an absolute condition limiting tuition assistance to courses related to current or future job duties, leaving no negotiation room | Subsection (c) is imperative, specific, and comprehensive; it preempts negotiation and arbitration |
| Whether factual disputes about whether a course relates to job duties create employer discretion that permits arbitration | The presence of fact questions (whether a course relates to duties) means arbitration is appropriate | Even if fact issues exist, the statute gives no discretion to the superintendent/board; factual determinations are not bargaining matters | Fact questions do not create statutory discretion; preemption remains despite factual inquiries |
| Whether contract language referencing N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 makes the subject negotiable | The Agreement’s tuition provisions and incorporation of the statute indicate negotiability and arbitral forum | Incorporation by reference does not cure preemption; statutes that set terms supplant negotiation | Incorporation does not permit negotiation of matters expressly fixed by statute; statute controls |
| Whether employees lack any recourse if arbitration is preempted | Arbitration is necessary to vindicate employee rights under the contract | Employees may appeal superintendent denials to the board and to the Commissioner of Education and Appellate Division | Employees retain administrative and judicial review routes; arbitration is not the sole remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Borough of Keyport v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 222 N.J. 314 (2015) (scope-of-negotiation limits for public employers and policy-determination concerns)
- Local 195 v. Morris Tp. Bd. of Ed., 88 N.J. 393 (1982) (three-part test for negotiability in public sector)
- Teaneck Bd. of Educ. v. Teaneck Teachers Ass'n, 94 N.J. 9 (1983) (arbitrability coextensive with negotiability)
- State v. State Supervisory Emps. Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54 (1978) (statutes using "shall" are typically imperative and preempt negotiation)
- Neptune Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 144 N.J. 16 (1996) (statute preempting contractual increments where statute expressly limits benefit)
- Bethlehem Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Bethlehem Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 91 N.J. 38 (1982) (statutes/regulations that fix terms and leave no discretion preempt bargaining)