Robbinsville Township Board of Education v. Washington Township Education Ass'n
149 A.3d 1283
N.J.2016Background
- Robbinsville Bd. of Ed. and Washington Township Education Association were bound by a collective bargaining agreement (2008–2011) that computed teacher pay by work days (185 days for most teachers).
- In March–May 2010 the district faced massive state and local funding cuts; the Board sought to reopen negotiations multiple times and the Association declined.
- The Board unilaterally imposed three unpaid furlough days (reducing the work year from 185 to 182 days) to balance the budget and notified faculty by e-mail.
- The Association filed an unfair practice charge with PERC alleging violation of the EERA and the collective agreement; PERC granted summary judgment to the Board, finding furloughs a managerial prerogative.
- The Appellate Division affirmed relying on this Court’s decision in Keyport; the Association appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding Keyport was misapplied and did not authorize unilateral furloughs here because no emergency regulation authorized such action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board could unilaterally impose unpaid furloughs that reduced work days and pay | Furloughs impact hours/pay (mandatory negotiable terms); Keyport is distinguishable because it relied on a civil-service emergency regulation authorizing temporary layoffs | Keyport permits unilateral temporary layoffs in economic crises; negotiation would improperly shift governmental policy to bargaining | Board may not unilaterally impose furloughs here; Keyport does not authorize such action absent a comparable emergency regulation; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether Keyport establishes a general rule that economic crisis alone allows non‑negotiable furloughs | Keyport’s holding was limited to civil‑service municipalities and hinged on an emergency regulation; it should not be extended statewide | Keyport recognized municipalities’ right to lay off employees and thus supports Board action | Court rejects Appellate Division’s broad reading of Keyport; Keyport was narrowly grounded on an emergency regulation and does not create a general exception |
| Whether the absence of third‑party oversight (e.g., Civil Service Commission) changes negotiability | Lack of regulatory/oversight approval distinguishes this case from Keyport and undermines non‑negotiability | Oversight is not essential; prior case law on layoffs supports Board prerogative | Third‑party regulatory authorization was a material factor in Keyport; its absence here favors negotiability |
| Whether Article 4.1 of the Agreement authorized the Board’s action (alternative defense) | (Plaintiff did not address) | Board contends contract’s emergency clause authorized its unilateral action | Court declined to decide contractual interpretation here (not raised below/cross‑petition absent); parties’ grievance mechanisms remain appropriate forum |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982) (announces three‑part test for negotiability: affects employees’ work/welfare; not preempted by statute/regulation; would not significantly interfere with governmental policy)
- Borough of Keyport v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 222 N.J. 314 (2015) (permitted temporary layoffs in civil‑service municipalities during economic crisis where a state emergency regulation authorized such layoffs)
- Troy v. Rutgers, 168 N.J. 354 (2001) (workdays and compensation are terms and conditions of employment requiring negotiation)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Woodstown‑Pilesgrove Reg’l Educ. Ass’n, 81 N.J. 582 (1980) (school‑calendar changes affecting compensation implicate negotiable terms)
- State v. State Supervisory Emps. Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54 (1978) (permanent workforce reductions are a managerial prerogative)