STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. NEW JERSEY LAW ENFORCEMENT Â SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION(PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION), A-4723-15T4

Two NJLESA-member correctional sergeants (Pruzinski and Hahn) were injured on duty, received workers' compensation, and returned to work.
Upon return, DOC prorated and deducted sick and vacation accruals under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b), treating their leave as leave without pay.
NJLESA grieved both denials and filed for arbitration under the collective negotiations agreement (CNA); the State filed a scope petition with PERC to restrain arbitration.
PERC granted the State's scope petition, concluding employees receiving workers' compensation are on leave without pay for proration purposes and the matter is preempted by N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b).
NJLESA appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing workers on workers' compensation remain "on the payroll" (citing workers' compensation and pension statutes) and thus N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b) does not apply.
The Appellate Division affirmed PERC: the regulation’s plain language and civil service purpose govern; workers' compensation statutes serve different purposes and do not exempt employees from proration or arbitration restraint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employee receiving workers' compensation is "on a leave of absence without pay" (triggering proration under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b)) and thus not arbitrable	NJLESA: Employees receiving workers' comp remain "on the payroll" and should be treated as active for accruals; workers' comp and pension statutes support non-proration	State/PERC: N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b) plainly prorates leave for employees who leave service or are on leave without pay; employees receiving workers' comp are covered by that regulation; workers' comp statutes have different purposes and do not override civil service rules	Affirmed: Employees receiving workers' compensation are treated as on leave without pay for proration; N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.5(b) preempts arbitration of the grievances

Paterson Police PBA No.1 v. City of Paterson, 87 N.J. 78 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (framework for negotiability: statutory/regulatory control, mandatory vs. permissive subjects, and limits where government policy would be substantially constrained)
Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 78 N.J. 144 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (PERC has primary jurisdiction to determine scope of collective negotiations)
In re Hunterdon Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 116 N.J. 322 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (deference to PERC on its area of expertise; standard of review for PERC findings)
City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n, 154 N.J. 555 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (administrative determination on scope of negotiations stands unless arbitrary or capricious)
Morreale v. State, Civil Service Comm'n, 166 N.J. Super. 536 (App. Div. 1979) (refusing to read workers' compensation and civil service sick-leave rules in pari materia due to differing statutory purposes)
Novak v. Camden County Health Servs. Ctr. Bd. of Managers, 255 N.J. Super. 93 (App. Div. 1992) (workers' compensation statutes and civil service regulations serve different objectives; employer may take workforce actions notwithstanding an employee's receipt of workers' compensation)