*1 respondent’s be from the roll of ORDERED that name stricken enjoined attorneys permanently and that he be restrained law; practicing from and it is further funds, currently existing hereinaf- any, ORDERED that all if deposited Jersey financial institution maintained ter New pursuant WARD to Rule 1:21-6 shall be re- S. TAGGART except application to this Court for strained from disbursement on good cause shown and shall be transferred the financial institu- Court, deposit Superior tion to the Clerk of the who is directed to Superior pending funds in Fund further Court Trust Court; Order of this and it is further respondent comply dealing ORDERED that with Rule 1:20-20 attorneys. with disbarred respondent Disciplinary
ORDERED that reimburse the Over- sight appropriate Committee for administrative costs and actual matter, expenses prosecution provided incurred in the as Rule 1:20-17.
Chief Justice (Board) Holly Township Plaintiff Mt. Board of Education termi- Gonzalez, custodian, conducting disciplinary after a nated Juan time, one-year was in the middle of a hearing. At the Gonzalez him un- employment contract. The Board terminated individual contract, existing collectively negotiated der and not the (CNA) Holly agreement between the Board and defendant Mt. (Association). Township Education Association contract, Gonzalez was entitled to and Under the days’ of termination. Under the received fourteen notice Any discharged just without cause. such employees could not be grievance procedure outlined action was CNA, which allowed for arbitration. behalf and
The Association filed a on Gonzalez’s requested permanently trial court restrained arbitration. The *4 arbitration, judgment appeal. on and its was affirmed Interna-
Today
principles
we reaffirm
established
Lullo v.
409, 428,
Fighters, 55 N.J.
Because we find that Gonzalez’sindividual specific terms conflicted with the CNA and diminished its arbitration, and remand. depriving him of the to we reverse approach Legislature’s That is with the recent com- consistent interpreting meaning grievance mand of a arbitration clause, requiring “doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitra- remand, Accordingly, tion.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. on Gonzalez is grievance entitled to a before an arbitrator to address the filed.
I. dispute. Holly The relevant facts are not in Plaintiff Mt. Township public Board of Education is a school board of education and, thus, public employer meaning of the New within the - Act, Jersey Employer-Employee Relations N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to Holly Township 39. Defendant Association is a Mt. Education Act, public employee representative under the and is the sole representative negotiations for terms and condi- collective about tions of for certain other custodians and school employees.
The Board and the Association entered into a CNA for the period July through provisions from June 2007. Its unit, applied employees negotiation including to all in the custodi- ans and maintenance workers. IX(B), “just provision
The CNA contains a cause” at Article which states that discharged,
[n]o shall be reduced in rank or disciplined, reprimanded, advantage given or or an adverse compensation, deprived professional any just evaluation of services without cause. such action professional his/her Any agent asserted the Board or or shall be thereof, representative herein set procedure forth. added).] (emphasis [ XV(A)(1) “Grievance” is defined at Article as allegation an that there has been a or breach, misinterpretation improper applica- Agreement, tion of the terms of this or a claimed violation, misinterpretation, *5 324 regulations, existing or administrative decisions of rules or policies,
misapplication that affect the terms and conditions employment. XV(A)(3) a contract for specifically excludes non-renewal of Article is grievance. There employee from definition a non-tenured discharge an or exclusion for the termination comparable no employee mid-contract. five-step employee is to follow a aggrieved an
Under the XV(C). prog- process in Article grievance process outlined supervisor with an immediate to an initial discussion resses from binding arbitration. IX(E)(3) addition, employees are not affords all who Article terminated, disciplined, the well as those who are as
renewed hearing and a before the request a of reasons statement layoffs separately with tied to a reduction The CNA deals Board. XII, opinion. which we do not address tins in force Article a non-tenured custodi- hired Juan Gonzalez as The Board position, starting Before in that Gonzalez worker. an/maintenance standard, employment, prepared contract for signed a Board, July through June covering period from by “may that it time expressly contract stated 2006. The days’ written notice. party” either on fourteen be terminated working, was accused of strik- began he Gonzalez Months after disciplinary hearing on Board held a ing custodian. The another 20, 2006, in a letter that same January and terminated Gonzalez discipline hearing held this day. per “As The letter stated: afternoon, for the Mt. your position as custodian/maintenance February effective Holly Township Public Schools is terminated your employment contract.” in accordance with Board, chal- timely grievance with the filed a The Association claiming it was Gonzalez and lenging the decision to terminate grievance, just After the Board denied the without cause. done arbitration, thereby binding request for the Association filed discharge. the facts of Gonzalez’s seeking a on *6 2006, 24, Chancery the filed an action in the April On Board argued Board seeking to restrain arbitration. The Division fourteen-day the notice Gonzalez was terminated under because contract, employment the matter was provision of his individual the CNA. not arbitrable under Chancery granted motion to restrain arbitra-
The Division the employment contract’s permanently, noting that the individual tion just- clause did not conflict with the CNA’s termination-on-notice provision. cause stayed appealed. Appellate The Division oral
The Association
arguments
opportunity
had
to issue decisions
until this Court
the
Valley Regional
v.
High
in Pascack
School Board
Education
Ass’n,
489,
Valley Regional
192 N.J.
Support,
Pascack
Staff
(2007),
A.2d 589
and Northvale Board
Education v. Northvale
Ass’n,
501,
(2007),
192 N.J.
933A.2d 596
which involved
Education
21, 2008,
presented
April
here. On
the
issues similar to those
Appellate
judgment, relying
affirmed
trial court’s
Division
Valley.
heavily
ruling
on the
in Pascack
Valley
inappropri
Pascack
also involved a custodian accused of
ate behavior at work.
language—not present in the Mt. CNA—to be quoted passage was panel concluded that appeal. holding Valley. In the absence to this Court’s Pascack critical found, language, panel the Board comparable or of identical days’ notice under to terminate Gonzalez on fourteen was entitled agreement, showing just cause without having its termination decision to the CNA’s procedure. could nonetheless panel went on to note Gonzalez of reasons for his termination and a
obtain a statement IX(E)(3) Article of the CNA. under *7 N.J. granted petition the Association’s for certification. 196 We (2008). 346, 953A.2d 764
II.
right
argues that Gonzalez has a contractual
to
The Association
cannot be voided
his individ-
arbitration under the
which
The Association contends that
ual
contract.
Valley
way
applied
in the
it
Pascack
to
Appellate Division erred
import
presumption
in favor of
this case and overlooked the
ruling,
arbitrability
Appellate
in
The
Division
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3.
statutory rights of
argues,
it
undermines the constitutional and
collectively
negotiate
employers.
with their
public employees to
addition,
proce-
that the existence of a
In
the Association submits
hearing regarding
obtaining a statement of reasons and a
dure for
grievance procedures.
the CNA’s
termination does not eliminate
urges
Appellate
to
Division
The Board
this Court
affirm
presented
that the
has al
decision. The Board contends
issue
Alexander,
v.
ready
resolved
Camden Board Education
been
(2004),
and that the amendment to
181 N.J.
III.
interplay
independent employment contracts and
between
CNAs is best understood in the context of the overall framework
purpose
negotiations.
and historical
of collective labor
guarantees public employees
The State
“the
Constitution
State,
right
organize, present
to
and make known to the
to
political
agencies,
grievances
of its
and
subdivisions or
their
proposals through representatives
choosing.”
of their
N.J. Const.
I,
Although they
“bargain
art.
f 19.
do not have the
sector,
id.,
collectively”
private
counterparts
like their
in the
public
negotiations.”
employees may
engage
instead
in “collective
Camden,
supra,
(citing
Law, :76-4, N.J.S.A. 18A:1—1to which authorizes school boards to "make such
328 negotiations tied to now-recognized practice of collective is That “movement was origin the labor union movement.
the
single employee had no substantial
the realization that a
born of
leverage beyond the sale of his
strength. He had little
economic
obtaining
wages,
fair
hours of work and
to aid him in
own efforts
425,
Lullo, supra,
at
329
Troy,
superseded
whether a CNA
individual
when it considered
university professors.
pro
employment contracts of tenured
attempting
were
to enforce a more favorable
fessors
provision entitling
calendar-year, rather than
contract
them to
Troy, supra,
academic-year, appointments under the CNA.
358-61,
agree
upholding
N.J. at
We now reaffirm the articulated in and Lullo Troy: general, agreements supersede collective individual con provisions employment tracts. To the extent in an individual collectively contract conflict or are inconsistent with terms in a negotiated agreement, rights pro and diminish interfere with language vided in the individual contract must yield approach properly respects agreements to the CNA. That negotiating hammered out both at the proceed sides table. To would negotiations. otherwise undermine collective
IV. case, applying principles those to the facts of this we find that Gonzalez’s individual contract conflicts with rights yield his diminishes under the CNA and must agreement. collective He is therefore entitled to an arbitration hearing.
The basis for the Union’s is that Gonzalez was dis- cause, charged showing just required by without a as Article IX(B) alleged agree- of the CNA. That violation of the collective ment “grievance” satisfies the CNA’s definition of in Article XV(A)(1): improper application “a breach ... or of the terms of *10 grieved the decision to Agreement.” The Union therefore sought Gonzalez and arbitration.
terminate IX(B) employee language CNA—“[n]o in Article The all covered discharged just cause”—applies ... without to shall be action, according an to the employees including custodians. Such CNA, procedure grievance herein set “shall be forth,” binding arbitration. Gonzalez’s individual which allows for contract, “may any time be though, states that it days’ by party” on fourteen written notice. terminated either Reduced to a real conflict between the two documents. There is essence, view, only is entitled to under the Board’s Gonzalez its and before 14-days’ before termination no advance notice however, CNA, gives Gonzalez the to be an arbitrator. one-year term of his individual contract employed for the full to just exists. He is also entitled unless cause for dismissal before a neutral arbitrator challenge the basis for dismissal hearing. approaches The two filing grievance requesting a co-exist; agreement individual interferes with and cannot CNA. rights Gonzalez’s under the diminishes Gonzalez was argues there is no conflict because The Board disciplined employment contract and not terminated under his situation, claims, Only Board calls CNA. the latter under the CNA, of dis- grievance But under the the act for arbitration. just employee entitles an charging employee an without cause IX(B). argument, grievance arbitration. See Art. Board’s therefore, “discharged” word out of the contract reads the reality what agreed glosses It also over the both sides to. in the middle of his contract. here: Gonzalez was fired occurred “discharge” of a con- that a or “termination” Whether one calls the Board conceded makes little difference. As counsel for tract is, the terms to an argument, the distinction between at oral extent, a matter of semantics. present because suggests that no conflict is
The Board also not under the individual contract employees receive a benefit days’ pay. In fourteen notice with called for the CNA: addition, notify have to the State Board of Examin- school districts if for cause but not if he ers a non-tenured is dismissed employment agreement. or she is terminated under an individual dismissal, case of a for-cause See N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.3. employee’s State maintain the name on a list that can be must also by prospective employers. checked the extent those differ- Id. To benefits, they ences are considered cannot mask the fact that a real conflict nevertheless exists: under the Gonzalez could discharged just not be without and was entitled to cause arbitration; contract, under the he could be fired with- days’ out cause on 14 notice. *11 result, reaching contrary Appellate placed
In
a
the
Division
too
specific
much reliance on
in
in
the
words used
the CNA involved
Valley.
previously,
Valley
Pascack
As discussed
conclud
Pascack
required
ed that arbitration was
for a mid-contract dismissal of a
discharged
disciplinary hearing.
custodian who was
after a
500,
ruling,
interpreted
N.J. at
933A.2d
In
589.
so
this Court
the
Although
CNA before it.
employ
the
had an individual
notice,
providing
days’
ment contract
for fifteen
the CNA declared
“[a]ny
suspension
that
disciplin
dismissal or
shall be considered a
ary
option
action and shall at the
...
the custodian
be
492,
to
Among
the Grievance Procedure.” Id. at
guage in the individual contract flicting course cannot survive. mistakenly suggests requires that Camden
The Board
Camden,
on a school board’s
supra, focused
different outcome.2
the end of their annual
custodians at
decision not to renew
Gonzalez,
Unlike
N.J. at
In
employees
renew non-tenured school
under
Board’s
not to
18A:27-4.1(b)
the CNA did not
and determined
N.J.S.A.
195-203,
at
333
Camden,
Legislature
amended N.J.S.A.
the aftermath of
12, 2006,
34:13A-5.3,
January
adopted
following
effective
presumption
arbitrability
public employees:
interpreting
of
for
“In
meaning
provision
negotiation
and extent of a
of a collective
arbitration,
agreement
grievance
agency
providing for
a court or
by presumption
shall be
a
in favor
Doubts
bound
of arbitration.
scope
as to the
an
be
in favor of
of
arbitration clause shall
resolved
thus,
requiring
Legislature,
arbitration.” The
overruled Camden
Ass’n,
Alpha Alpha
on this issue. Bd.
Educ.
v.
Educ.
190
(2006).
34, 48,
N.J.
A .2d579
918
Requiring arbitration in this case is consistent with the
Legislature’s
extending
pre
amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.8
a
sumption
public employees.
in favor of arbitration to
That statu
tory presumption
principle
also reaffirms the
is
“[alrbitration
resolving
disputes.”
Valley,
a favored means of
labor
Pascack
(citations
496,
supra,,
Y. IX(E)(3) briefly We address Article which employees hearing. entitles to a statement of reasons and a supplements process, Because it arbitration clause does not alter the outcome in this case. IX(E)(3) “[a]ny provides
Article who does not receive a new contract or whose services are terminated or suspended disciplined reprimanded or who is or who is reduced compensation” in rank or is entitled to a statement of reasons and request. before the Board on The clause mirrors 18A:27-4.1(b), language designed contained in N.J.S.A. which is permit employees not opportunity whose contracts are renewed an “to convince reemployment.” the members the board to offer (1960); Co., 4 1347, 363 U.S. 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1409 United Steelworkers of Am. v. & Wheel Car U.S. 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Enterprise Corp., (1960), *13 334 expressly nor language in the CNA neither
The additional pursue grievance employee’s right to implication supersedes an IX(B). employees, like those Article For some arbitration under grievance file a under renewed and cannot whose contracts are not Others, IX(E)(3) CNA, only like their recourse. Article is IX(E)(3), Gonzalez, options. or both Article may choose either grievance entirety, cannot be read to bar though, viewed in its hearing of reasons and a provides It for a statement arbitration. IX(B)’s just-cause range covered Article for the full of events words, only discharged employees, but not provision. In other pay, reprimanded, or reduced in rank or disciplined, also those hearing. Surely, latter and a may seek a statement of reasons plain language grievance file a under the employees are entitled to IX(B). employee who is holds true for an of Article same opportunity for a statement of discharged or terminated. The replace, supplements, but does not reasons and therefore arbitration. VI. above, judgment reverse the forth we For the reasons set for arbitration. Appellate Division and remand RIVERA-SOTO, dissenting. Justice in “reaffirm[ing] principles established Under the mantle of Fighters, Fire 55 N.J. Lullo v. International Ass’n of 428, 262 A.2d 354, 375-76, (1970), Rutgers, N.J. Troy v. (2001),” provisions in majority that when “eonclude[s] A.2d 476 the terms in a employment contract conflict with an individual (CNA) ], and diminish or inter negotiations agreement [collective language in the rights provided by the fere with agreement.” Ante yield to the collective individual contract must that, doing majority asserts in at 392. The also 972 A.2d so, Legisla consistent with the “approach [that] has taken an is it meaning interpreting recent command that ture’s clause, should be resolved favor grievance arbitration ‘doubts *14 requiring (quoting A.2d at 389 arbitration.’ Ante at 34:13A-5.3”). that, majority N.J.S.A therefore determines remand, employee employment “on whose individual contract [the pursuant was contract] terminated to that is entitled to a grievance before an [under arbitrator to address the filed the CNA].” Ante at 972A.2d at 389. error, majority’s reasoning the in I
Because and conclusion are respectfully dissent.
I. majority aptly appeal. summarizes the facts relevant to this underscore, however, I following. the 5, 2005, May plaintiff Holly Township
On Mt. Board of Edu- (Board Education) cation of and defendant Juan Gonzalez entered contract, one-year July into a written to run from 2005 to June 30, 2006, whereby plain- Gonzalez would in serve as a custodian specifically, clearly unequivocally tiffs schools. That contract provided as follows: agreed It is the hereto that this contract time be hereby by parties may any giving writing terminated either to the other in fourteen notice of by party day[s’]
intention in same, to terminate the but that the absence of herein for any provision a definite number of the notice, contract shall run for the full term named days’ above. Tellingly, Gonzalez does not claim that the termination of his employment any proeedurally improper: contract was in wise requisite proper notice of termination in form was fact provided to him.1 1 Also, no is asserted in this record over basis quarrel explicitly Gonzalez’s termination: the fact that Gonzalez struck another Although majority custodian. “[t]he asserts that basis for the Union's grievance discharged showing just is that Gonzalez was without a cause, as IX(b) CNA[,]” 329-30, Article of the ante at 392-93, 972 A.2d at required by grievance neither nor the later arbitration demand filed the Union on Gonzalez’s behalf is Therefore, this record. one cannot reproduced anywhere objected
tell with termination, whether Gonzalez to the basis for his or certainty
By employment, Gonzalez also was member of virtue of his (Union). Section Holly Township Mt. Education Association IX(B) Education then relevant CNA between the Board of discharged, provided shall be “[n]o and the Union compensation, in rank or or disciplined, reprimanded, reduced given an evalu- deprived any professional advantage or adverse just without cause” and professional ation of services his/her or “[a]ny [of Education] action asserted the Board such thereof, agent representative shall be *15 general grievance a procedure forth.” In addition to herein set below, II, specific “employee a procedure described in Section custodians, in rights” procedure applicable to as set forth Section IX(E)(3) in provided of the full as follows: are contract!,] who does not receive a new or whose services Any employee or who is terminated or or who is or disciplined reprimanded!,] suspended!,] (5) working in reduced in rank or shall within five days compensation request
writing a of for the above directed to the statement reasons Superintendent given be within seven mentioned. Said statement of reasons shall employee (7) working addition, of the In the shall after the request. employee days receipt granted hearing [it] the Board of Education the the be a before employee requests (5) hearing writing a shall be in and made within five same. Said for request working [of Education] The Board of the of the statement of reasons. days receipt meeting regularly hearing regular unless the next shall hold its at its board (10) meeting is than ten from the date of [of Education] scheduled Board less days hearing event, received. In that the shall be the for the is request following regularly [of Education] meet- continued until the next scheduled Board hearing- ing. and have at must be shall option his/her employee present right to have a The Board of Education shall issue present. representative (7) working a determination within seven after the days written employee hearing. time limits set forth in this document of the The above may completion mutual shall meet Superintendent be altered consent of parties. terminated, will not be renewed or who are with all who employees prior privately to officialwritten notification. deemed, measure, large superfluous. may in provision This be 18A:27-4.1, Pui’suant to N.J.S.A. “employee an whose have the to a written statement contract is not renewed shall manner in which either was thereof, as a result or the the sanction imposed thereof. reached, or combination and pursuant 18A:27-3.2]2 nonrenewal to [N.J.S.A. of reasons for explains appearance the board.” Section 4.1 to an informal before permit be to the staff purpose appearance that shall “[t]he reemploy- to offer member to convince the members of the board requires that chief school administrator “[t]he ment.” Ibid. It also Ibid. notify nonrenewal[.]” shall the officer or of however, custodians, provision contractual has respect of this teachers, who have a independent importance. Unlike untenured employment, contract of statutory right to receive either a written nonrenewal, 18A:27-10, a N.J.S.A. 18A:27- N.J.S.A or notice shall, 3.2, “[e]very janitor district unless public school school office, term, position his appointed he is for a fixed hold efficiency during good behavior and and employment under tenure compensation.” suspended not be dismissed or or reduced shall said, specifically That N.J.S.A. 18A:17-41 N.J.S.A. 18A:17-3. provides of each district shall make “[t]he board education title, may regulations, as such rules and not inconsistent with management necessary employment, discharge, be for janitor, janitor engineers, custodians or public control of the school janitorial employees of the district.” 18A:17-3, the Board of permitted by
As N.J.S.A. Gonzalez and writing, employed would be as agreed, Education that Gonzalez and, period year point, more to the a custodian for a of one *16 terminated—by employment could be either side—on fourteen his gives days’ by provision notice. That notice rise to termination dispute. this
II. Against backdrop, majority that “Gonzalez’s concludes employment with and diminishes his individual contract conflicts teaching receiving member N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.2 that staff provides "[a]ny teaching succeeding for the school will not be offered notice that contract year writing thereafter, a statement of the reasons for within 15 may, days request teaching given such which shall be staff member nonemployment writing within 30 after the of such days receipt request.” agree- yield to the collective
rights under the CNA and must
hearing.”
entitled to an arbitration
and that
is therefore
ment[
h]e
is,
end,
329-30,
There
in the
no real
The fatal that the termination of Gonza- acceptance proposition of the ersatz conflicts with and therefore is to lez’s contract somehow procedure assumption the CNA That general grievance under wrong. is XV(A)(1) “grievance” “an of the CNA defines a as
Section
breach,
or
allegation
misrepresentation
there has been a
Agreement,
of this
or a claimed
improper application of the terms
violation,
regula-
misinterpretation,
misapplication of rules or
or
tions, existing policies, or administrative decisions that affect the
Yet,
employment.”
neither Gonzalez nor
terms and conditions of
alleged
anything in
of
the Union ever
the termination Gonza-
breach,
employment
constituted either “a
lez’s written contract
of this
misrepresentation
improper application
of the terms
or the Union ever claim
Agreement[.]” Nor did either Gonzalez
of Gonzalez’s
with the Board
that the termination
violation, misinterpretation, or
Educations constituted a “claimed
misapplication
regulations, existing policies, or adminis-
of rules or
employ-
that affect the terms and conditions
trative decisions
short,
satisfy the
patently
Gonzalez’s claims
do not
ment.”
and,
reason,
general
for that
“grievance”
definition of a
CNA’s
triggered.
CNA not
The neces-
grievance procedure under the
is
fairly
compelled:
sary corollary to that conclusion also is
when
us, Gonzalez’s
interpreted
presented
in the context
read and
coexist,
can and do
employment contract and the CNA
circumstances,
side,
it is our
without conflict.
In those
side
bargain
between
unwavering obligation to enforce the
as struck
employment could
parties.
bargain
That
was that Gonzalez’s
days’ notice.
by the Board of Education on fourteen
be terminated
*17
High
Focusing
Valley Regional
on
School Board
Pascack
Association,
Regional Support
Valley
Education v. Pascack
Staff
(2007),
explained
Appellate
192 N.J.
933A .2d589
Division
that
it
a custodian who was terminated
“also involved
employer board of education in accordance with his
contract,
employment
which was identical to the individual con
fifteen,
appeal except
provided
involved in
that it
for
tract
this
fourteen,
(citing
days
rather than
notice of termination”
Pascack
492-93,
589).
Valley, supra,
It noted that
pursue grievance, including a arbitration of his termination for reasons, disciplinary the Court characterized the underscored ” ‘expansive scope’ (citing sentence as its id. at 933 A.2d 589). that, explained Valley, It further “[this] Pascack Court provision specified any observed that dismissal of a disciplinary custodian would be considered to be a action just analysis, gave option to a cause and it the custodian the pursue (citing and arbitration of dismissal” ibid. (internal omitted)). quotation quoted length marks It *18 Valley, supra, 192 N.J. at
followingpassage from Pascack A .2d589: the individual contract’s termination the use of circumstances, Under these agreement, falls, reason other than one that was not a termination for clause contract it was an effort to use the individual Rather, the terms of the CNA.
within agreed in the CNA would to the Board apply to the protections bypass the measure of dismissal such, As it was disciplinary of all employees. discipline through right grieve gave the the custodian the to the CNA specifically arbitration mechanism. analysis aptly paralleled that of this Court panel’s the Board of Education Valley: the CNA between Pascack provision the Court the additional the Union “did not contain ‘[a]ny Valley—that dismissal to be critical in Pascack found disciplinary action and shall suspension shall be considered subject ... be to the Grievance option of the custodian the ” 589). focusing on Rightly 933 A.2d (citing Procedure.’ id. at any comparable provision that provision or “the absence of this employee subject to an individual upon an confers grieve in accordance with the the to a termination contract contract,” that the Appellate Division “concluded terms of that the days fourteen notice to terminate Gonzalez on Board was entitled having decision showing just cause or its termination without negotiating collective grievance procedures the agreement.” rejection of compels It also
That conclusion is unassailable. indiscriminately sweep in all majority’s reasoning that would a CNA. within the limited embrace of terms of individual contracts analysis we in Pascack proper scope of remains as described meaning into the words to which the Valley: breathing relevant exceeding agreed-upon parame- agreed, without parties have employment con- agreements. Because individual ters of those and, instances, required in some commonplace are tracts parties to a CNA sphere, it is incumbent on the public education general absolutely any desire to have the more to make clear specific an individual contract’s provisions of the CNA overrule with the readily could have been achieved That result provisions. dispositive language found inclusion of the additional contractual Also, utterly here.3 that result Valley in Pascack but absent by expanding the definition of easily could have been achieved employee’s of an “grievance” to include termination contract, which, again, not done here. Because neither effort was here, parties’ agreement as undertaken I would enforce the was written, majority. and not as embellished and enhanced
III.
*19
Appellate
correctly
important
recognize—as
It is
the
Division
grievance proce-
barring
from recourse to the
did—that
Gonzalez
remedy.
not leave him without a
dure under the CNA does
recognized
rights’ article of the
panel properly
‘employee
that “the
agreement
procedure
under
collectively negotiated
established
any employee whose contract was terminated or not re-
which
employment
could
a statement of reasons for the
newed
obtain
by
Superintendent of Schools and a
before the
action
the
procedure applies
It
that “this
Board of Education.”
observed
contracts,
employment
both to
and to nonrenewals of
terminations
3Significantly,
Valley
particular
in Pascack
we noted "the
circumstances of
matter,
parties
agreed
employees
where the
have
that the nontenured school
may only
disciplined
just
any
be
for
cause and have
dismissal as a
defined
disciplinary
grievance procedures
subject
employees' op-
to the
at
action
the
tion,"
supra,
(emphasis supplied). In
192NJ. at
law is appeals greatly overshadows the system procedures and rights an arbitration award. Under appeal limited available from education are reviewable in system, decisions a board of State Commissioner of Education. See the first instance have N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 (providing that commissioner shall “[t]he determine, parties, all jurisdiction to hear and without cost laws, arising except- disputes under school controversies education, rules of the ing governing higher or under the those commissioner”). turn, decisions of state board or of the right by the Education are reviewed as of State Commissioner of *20 18A:6-9.1(a) (explaining that See N.J.S.A Appellate Division. regulation “[notwithstanding provisions any law or to the the of 7, [July this act contrary, 2008] the effective date of on and after by of Education in all made the Commissioner determinations arising laws shall be disputes and under school controversies ‘Administrative agency be final action under the considered to (C.52:14B-1 Act,’ P.L.1968, seq.), appeal et and c. 410 Procedure directly Appellate Division of the of that action shall be Court”).4 Yet, ever neither Gonzalez nor the Union Superior rights.” “employee those invoked Commissioner 2008, from the decisions of the State 7, Prior to July appeals N.J.S.A. Board of Education. See former Education were to the then-State of 2008). (eff. § 18A:6-27, L. c. July by repealed statutory light “employee rights” contractual and of appeals procedures decision review and attendant to the Board employment, Education’s to terminate Gonzalez’s determination majority’s approach. proper one is at a loss to fathom the as-of-right of a custodian’s course would be that the termination employment by relevant contract of be reviewed first board education, Education, then the State Commissioner of and then Appellate Division.
TV. appeal by every meaningful Gonzalez and the Union fails in respect: employment termination of contract was Gonzalez’s procedurally substantively proper; and there is no conflict be- tween Gonzalez’s individual contract and the justify nullifying portions much less one to the individual contract; that termination does not fall within the definition of a “grievance” necessary precedent trigger as a condition CNA; grievance procedure under the Gonzalez never invoked the “employee rights” to him available under the CNA and as a law; sought matter of state and Gonzalez never to vindicate his rights appeals procedure provided via the to him. For each of reasons, respectfully those I dissent.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice RABNER and LONG, Justices ALBIN and WALLACE—4. LaVECCHIA,
For RIVERA-SOTO affirmance—Justices HOENS—3.