37 A.3d 1162
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Township of Franklin, a public employer, entered CNAs with PBA and SOA governing terms for all police officers; CNAs include management’s right to change work schedules; pending successor agreement, 2008-2009 terms remain in force.
- Matrix Consulting Group conducted an operational audit; recommended shifting from 4-4 to 4-2 or 5-2 shifts and potential staff reductions; current 4-4 deemed less efficient.
- Township Council adopted a resolution on March 23, 2010 to implement Matrix recommendations; changes to take effect January 1, 2011.
- June 17, 2010, PBA and SOA opposed the proposed scheduling changes; they filed PERC petitions seeking compulsory arbitration.
- Township filed its own PERC petitions (SN-2011-011 and SN-2011-025) seeking a scope of negotiations determination on Article 6C (PBA) and Article 7C (SOA).
- PERC concluded the current schedule and proposed changes were generally negotiable and upheld mandatory arbitration; Township appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are work schedules mandatorily negotiable under Local 195 test? | Township argues CNAs waiver precludes negotiation. | PERC held scheduling not preemptively non-negotiable absent policy override. | Yes; scheduling is mandatorily negotiable. |
| Do CNA language and managerial prerogative exempt scheduling from negotiation? | Township reads language as implementing a bargained provision. | Court rejects expansive reading; changes affect pay/hours beyond management rights. | No; not purely managerial; affects compensation/hours requiring negotiation. |
| Did the court properly balance governmental policy against employee interests? | Township emphasizes managerial prerogative to control staffing and policy. | Court applies Local 195 balancing test; government interests do not trump negotiability here. | Balance supports negotiability; arbitration is appropriate. |
| Does past practice or waiver evidence show scheduling is negotiable? | Past practice indicates scheduling changes have been bargained before. | Waiver not clearly established to defeat negotiability. | Past practice supports negotiability; waiver not clearly established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benev. Ass’n, 154 N.J. 555 (N.J. Supreme Court, 1998) (three-pronged negotiability test for public employees)
- Local 195, IFPTB, 88 N.J. 393 (N.J. Supreme Court, 1982) (principles on governmental policy vs. employee conditions)
- In re Mt. Laurel, 215 N.J. Super. 108 (N.J. Superior Court (App.Div.), 1987) (arbitration scope and public policy considerations of scheduling)
- In re Morris County Sheriff’s Office v. Morris Cnty. Policemen’s Benev. Ass’n, Local 298, 418 N.J. Super. 64 (N.J. Superior Court (App.Div.), 2011) (governmental policy vs. managerial prerogative in scheduling)
- Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters v. Rutgers, 381 N.J. Super. 63 (N.J. Superior Court (App.Div.), 2005) (compensation/issues intimately affecting employees are negotiable)
- In re Camden Cnty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15 (N.J. Superior Court (App.Div.), 2007) (agency deference to statutory interpretation in negotiations)