*1 parties Thus to the that the (Ch.Div.1956). extent N.J.Super. particularized agreements developed comprehensive have circumstances, arrangements responsive peculiar their greatly assist the deference and judicial will be entitled to in such matters. supervisory its role discharge in the judiciary case, held that properly Division Appellate In this ruled, nevertheless, se. per It clause not invalid escalation was according to its terms in enforceable that the clause was not as trial court inquiry of an and determination absence circumstances the enforcement those changed whether under it fair, just equitable. Consequently, re terms would disposition, This the case such a determination. manded estimation, We do not and need not entirely our sound. including propriety view retained intimate on the facts of this business under case earnings defendant’s escalation clause. part of income under the reasons, judgment below is affirmed. For the foregoing and Justices SUL- For Justice WILENTZ affirmance —Chief CLIFFORD, PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, LIVAN, HANDLER and POLLOCK—7.
For reversal—None. JERSEY, INC., COUNCIL OF NEW UNEMPLOYED-EMPLOYED APPELLANT, HORN, COMMISSIONER, DEPART- v. JOHN J. INDUSTRY, JERSEY, AND STATE OF NEW MENT OF LABOR RESPONDENT. April
Argued September 1980 —Decided *2 appellant. Regina C. Little argued the cause for Bokar, Attorney argued the cause Michael S. Deputy General (John Degnan, J. Attorney of New General respondent Skillman, Jersey, attorney; Stephen Attorney Assistant Gener- al, counsel). of the Court was delivered opinion
HANDLER, J. Law, to L. pursuant created
The Office of Administrative seq., 52:14F-1 et given general jurisdic- c. cases for all state in contested tion to conduct judges. A agencies through independent administrative matters, certain kinds of contested few state *3 however, statutory provision from by express are excluded appeal Law. This coverage of the Office of Administrative contested of whether question addresses the presently as conducted compensation, claims unemployment Division of of review in the and board by appeal tribunals Department in the Disability Unemployment Temporary statutory exemption. within the Industry, Labor and comes I inquiry with an from originated The issues in this appellant behalf of Unem- Jersey, of New on Legal Services to the Commissioner Jersey of New ployed-Employed Council The took Industry. Commissioner Department of Labor and review, board of which tribunals and position that the compensation claims adjudicate unemployment Temporary Disability Insurance Division of referred to Security, (formerly Employment the Division of compensa- “Division”) unemployment under the simply herein seq., 43:21-1 et jurisdic- from the law, are excluded tion (OAL) the terms of Law tion of the Office of Administrative was directed to 52:14F-8(b). inquiry A similar Law and Chief Admin- Director of the of Administrative Office Judge, acquiesced istrative Law who the result reached ground Commissioner on the alternate that the Commissioner had the authority 52:14F-7(a) to determine under N.J.S.A. such cases were not to be and for considered “contested” reason did not come under Pursu- the OAL.1 ant to appellant N.J.S.A. 52:14B-8 then a formerly requested Commissioner, declaratory ruling from the who complied by confirming prior position, supported his accompanying legal memorandum from the Attorney Appellant ap- General. pealed ruling Appellate to the Division and the case was directly pursuant certified the Court to R. 2:12-1. For the reasons herein presented, position we now affirm the Commissioner Attorney General.
II (OAL) The Law Office of Administrative was established by L.1978, seq., e. N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 et to be effective on January 1979. This new governmental body constitutes the culmination of years of effort to achieve fundamental reforms affecting the government. of state signal improvement encompassed by program the new is the officers, corps independent establishment of a re- ferred to judges,” as “administrative law directly responsible to the Director of the Office of Administrative Law. N.J.S.A. 52:14F-3, 4, 5. The Office of Law Administrative itself is not functionally part state any other administrative agency. Director, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1. Its who is also the Chief Adminis- *4 52:14F-7(a) provides 1N.J.S.A. as follows: Nothing amendatory supplementary in this shall and act be construed deprive any agency authority pursuant to the head of to section 10 P.L.1968, (C. 52:14B-10) c. 410 to determine whether a case is contest- adopt, reject modify findings or ed to of fact and law conclusions.of judge. administrative law noted, position upon 52:14F-8(b). As the Commissioner’s rested N.J.S.A. 52:14F-7(a) upon Since N.J.S.A. is not relied in the the Commis- sioner, light disposition. it need not be addressed in of our with the advice by the Governor Judge, appointed Law is trative 52:14F-3. The foremost N.J.S.A. and consent of Senate. judges under the new of the administrative responsibility cases that arise in the in contested hearings conduct the law is to N.J.S.A. 52:14F- State. agencies administrative various impartiality legislation bring is to of this major purpose hearings ultimately and to achieve objectivity agency and adjudications. in administrative Com- levels of fairness higher 766-L.1978, No. (“Committee e. 67 Senate Statement mittee with establishing the OAL deals the law Statement”). While practice proce- aspects other important agency rules dure, publication promulgation such as 52:14B-7, 52:14F-5(e), (f)), (N.J.S.A. and regulations particularly most to the is directed the salient reform of the law quasi-judicial proceed- engaged hearing function of ings. adjudication of in the administrative recognizes
The act from the ultimate cases, distinguished as hearing, from the decision itself. decision, separately handled usually agency employees delegated to were Typically, Administrative Procedure acting examiners. In the as supple- was a Act, creating the OAL to which the enactment amendment, were referred as ment and these examiners 52:14B-10(a), usually and were officers,” “presiding diverse duties addition to their employees agency with only part-time were often used hearing responsibilities. They subordinate and generally of cases and were agency respect with accountable to the decisional head perceived was widely of their duties. It performance di- agency greatly this format for administrative objectivity minished decisions. impartiality hearing officers fostered an employees The use of such in favor of the with propensity institutional bias or respect to recommended decisions that was felt factfinding and rights being adjudicated. to be unfair to the whose were parties *5 v. Win of Hackensack City Statement, supra; see Committee legislation response was a ner, N.J. 1,36-37 (1980). The OAL to this concern. of contested case, conceded that it within the Division of arising compensation cases
unemployment fall Disability Insurance would Temporary required would be to be of the statute within the ambit judge jurisdiction law under the by conducted an administrative OAL,2 The Commissioner unless otherwise excluded. of the statutory appli- a exclusion is claim that such Attorney General cable. is N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8 which states: exclusionary provision
shall be the Divisionof Workers’ agency a. The State Board Unless not within section a assigned by specific request the director Compensation, Parole, 2(a) is made the Public P.L.1968, by to hear the Division agency, c. 410 Employment Relations contested cases with (C. 52:14B-2(a)); no administrative of Tax Appeals, [3] Commission, respect to: or to judge any part pertinent applies of “contested to the 2The statute in agency” 52:14F-5(n). or by “any agency.” “State State cases” depart- principal by “agency” include “each is defined the statute to boards, Government, and all branch of the State ments the executive councils, authorities, commissions, divisions, agencies, departments, offices 52:14B-2(a). A “con- department within ...” N.J.S.A. or officers duties, obligations, privileges, legal rights, tested case” is one “in which the by parties required legal specific constitutional benefits or other relations decisions, by by determina- right be determined or statute to interests, tions, orders, disposing after of their to them or addressed Thus, disputed 52:14B-2(b). hearing.” opportunity for an compensation and board unemployment tribunals claims heard statutory clearly definitions. covered these of review in the Division are L.1981, 27, amendment, through not Slight changes c. are in these definitions appeal. relevant in this Treasury, Department Appeals in the State 3The Division of Tax OAL, supplant- jurisdiction now been has which was excluded from Court, Jersey court of limited Tax ed the New 1), functioning par. (1947), (NJ.Const. Art. § under the Constitution Court, Supreme authority judicial government branch of under 52:14F-8(a) L.1979, 114; amended to has been c. N.J.S.A. 54:2-33. N.J.S.A. L.1980, development. c. 166. reflect this *6 agency, or several Any a commissioner where the head of b. matter commissioners, required or determine to conduct to conduct are individually. directly and the contested cases conduct- contends The Commissioner come board of review within tribunals and the by appeal ed asserted that each of these b. It is the exclusion of subsection agency and that separate a of review constitutes levels officers, there- agencies are decisional members of each of these Moreover, it is agency.”4 head of by qualifying as “[t]he are said, respective agencies officers of these the decisional compensa- governing unemployment empowered by the statute “directly individually.” claims cases to hear contested tion Therefore, employment of contested urged, it is lan- is excluded compensation cases in these 52:14F-8(b) subject to transfer or and is not guage of N.J.S.A. judges.5 to administrative law assignment must first examine the we addressing argument, this ap- establishing responsibility the structure statute Unemploy- in the Division of tribunals and board of review peal unemployment The Disability Insurance. Temporary ment and (L.1936, 270) in 1936 originally c. compensation law was enacted Act, Security 42 conjunction with the federal Social U.S.C.A. law is requirement federal seq. et A fundamental § adjudicated by matters be an compensation that unemployment authority agency" highest is “the 4The definition of “head of the any agency required by law to render an within authorized or 52:14B-2(d). “adjudication” includes a “final a An contested case.” N.J.S.A. determination, case.” made or rendered in decision or order 52:14B-2(c). part Legislature appellant that the failure on the 5The also contends Compensation Temporary designate the Division of Disability 52:14F-8 is subsection a of N.J.S.A. as an excluded under subject Law. to the of Administrative evidence of an intent that it be Office however, effectively interpretation, render the exclusion of sub- This would developed opinion, meaningless. in this that are section b For the reasons argument clearly legislative appellant’s in this this not the intent and was respect rejected. must be 503(a)(3). U.S.G.A. tribunal.” State “impartial § indispensable condition. drafted to with comply was are matters administered Unemployment compensation N.J. Labor and Department Industry. Division within the level, 43:21-6(a). lowest administrative a claim S.A. At the referred to “repre benefits is a unemployment compensation director,” is designated called who “deputy,” sentative an initial determination. N.J.S.A. 43:21- authorized render granting disapprov The determination of the 6(b)(1). deputy Id. Such is taken. an claims becomes final unless ing N.J. appellate an intermediate may body. taken to 43:21-6(c). S.A. impartial appeal “one or more
This level constituted case of either a salaried examiner or consisting tribunals in each supervision the of a Chief body, consisting of examiners under appointed the [by all of whom shall be Appeals Examiner Division, with the of the approval Director Commissioner] Statutes, the to of Title 11 of Revised pursuant the provisions N.J.S.A. statutes.” 43:21- applicable other Civil Service and statutory vested with the 6(d). These tribunals are appeal ” benefit claims .... disputed to "... and decide power hear is deemed final Id. appeal the tribunal to be decision of review. N.J.S.A. appeal to board unless an is taken 43:21-6(c). appointed persons of three
The board review consists appeals to a final in act as board director “whose duties shall the work of [supervise] ... and ... disputes cases of benefit 34:1A-19; N.J.S.A. appeal local ....” tribunals “permit further 43:21-10(d). of review must such The board appeal a decision interested in of an appeal by any parties any and from determination which is not unanimous tribunal tribunal,” by any appeal which had been overruled or modified “affirm, any or and, motion, modify, it can set aside on its own basis of evidence of an tribunal on the decision case, taking of addi- in such or direct previously submitted evidence, may permit tional any parties to such appeals decision initiate further before it.” N.J.S.A. 43:21- 6(e). Any proceedings, including Division, party may judicial obtain review of the board's final decision and the board party judicial review is deemed to be a action. 43:21-6(h). scheme, In view we of this entertain no hesitation in ruling hearings that the conduct of claims exempt board of review is under subsection b of N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8. agency by enjoys This statute complete powers of adjudication. In addition to full decisional responsibility, it is authorized to conduct hearings “directly and individually” by its appointed members and its are in fact so conducted. Moreover, it is the final appellate tribunal in the administrative hierarchy 43:21-10(d). Therefore, in the Division. N.J.S.A. it is clearly regarded to be as the “head of agency” within the terms and exclusionary provision intendment of the of N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8(b).
A similar readily conclusion is not as reached with respect to tribunal, the appeal which is the intermediate administrative appellate body glance, might the Division. At first it appear phrase “head of agency” would not cover such an entity as however, tribunal. The Legislature, employing this in the phraseology exemption provision apparent- ly overwhelming assumed that the majority quasi-judi- of state cial single-unit are bodies functioning *8 essentially on one level. tribunal, contrast,
The by way of functions at an level, intermediate adjudicating cases which have been deter- mined at a lower administrative level and which may be appeal- ed higher to a level. The question exemption is whether the of 8(b) was agency adjudications intended to cover 52:14F— at an intermediate tier in such an administrative structure.
The intended effect of the exclusion in this situation is not self-revealing. searching the true understanding
655 statute, a its should of internal sense application and proper terms; its ascribed to literal meaning control to be with sensibly read perceptively must be statutory language See, g., intent. e. Suter fulfilling legislative a view toward 150, Co., N.J. 160 and Machine 81 Foundry v. Antonio San Blair, Builders, v. N.J. Managers & Ass’n 60 (1979); N.J. Owners 220, 380, Brigantine, v. 29 N.J. (1972); 338-339 Schierstead Lee, 408, (1958); 27 N.J. 418 (1959); Wollen v. Fort 230-231 Co., Light 373, & 21 N.J. v. N.J. Power 378-379 Alexander (1956). mentioned, primarily with statute, we deals
The as have adjudications quasi-judicial of in the aspects of institutional bias partiality per- bias or has been agencies. administrative Such is adjudicatory function pronounced where ceived to be most hearing its and decisional as between procedurally bifurcated subordinate phases and the former is undertaken of upon this dimension legislation concentrates employees. agency adjudication. is responsibilities decisional hearing The bifurcation adjudicatory in administrative commonplace long-standing Cavicchia, (1954). 498 In 15 N.J. proceedings. Mazza v. See deed, hearings and their delegation from many vantages adjudications in agency function separation from the decisional in the effectuation expedient is a regarded necessary as machinery. governmental through its administrative business Division, Sullivan, Appellate observed sitting then Justice 488, (1970), 492 that this College, N.J.Super. In re Shelton necessary was “if adminis separation decision from effectively” and are to to function permitted trative “fair.” long procedures as are separation proper such Hoboken, Accord, v. N.J. Corp. City Fifth Pier St. Comm., 175 Supply Water (1956); Jersey In re North Disk Hence, in typical N.J.Super. (App.Div.1980). 190-193 situation, agency employees conduct where subordinate is to overcome the cases, of the statute purpose employees, partiality sensed favoritism of *9 656 easily hearing ultimately per- into the itself and creep
could by the agency meate the final decision made officer head.or hearing, based not the record but also only upon upon proposed findings hearing and recommendations of officer. particular The act this evil frontally by requiring addresses agency hearings in such situations be conducted adminis- judges, statutorily independent trative law who are any agency predisposition and therefore free of or bias. See, Hearings Government, Public before Senate State Federal and Interstate Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee on (March 20, 1978) at p. (“Public Hearings”). Senate No. 766 17 enacting legislation, Legislature In was also well situation, is, aware of the converse a contested case where its phase function not truncated from decisional conducts hearing directly. decisional officer Clearly no Legislature perceived remedy need to or alter this adjudication. fact, of agency point mode its exclusionary provision, preserve adjudica- it undertook to tions. governmental public
While
may
convenience
be advanced
by allowing hearings
separately
to be
from decisions
conducted
adjudications,
there is certainly
priori
no compulsion
process,
fairness,
borne of due
fundamental
statu
tory
Indeed,
command that
such a separation.
mandates
recognized
dissent,
complete
in cases involving
adjudica
officers,
directly
tions
undertaken
decisional
“the Legislature
high-level agency personnel
believed that such
could be expected
provide
procedurally
a fair and
would,
correct
addition, bring
expertise
regulation
their
in the area of
to bear
Thus,
on
Post at
the case.”
it has been
observed
under some
may
preferable
circumstances it
and desirable for
decision-makers’ themselves to hear the
City
evidence.
of As
Service,
Park
bury
Dept.
(1955);
v.
of Civil
17 N.J.
McAlpine
419
Garfield,
(E.
1947);
v.
Orange
135 N.J.L.
501
& A.
v.
DeStefano,
N.J.Super.
(App.Div.1958);
413
Morgan
cf.
v.
States,
468, 481,
906, 911-912,
United
298 U.S.
S.Ct.
80 L.Ed.
*10
must
(one who decides the case
evaluate
1288,
(1936)
1295
Comm., 134
Dolls,
Inc. v.
evidence); Horsman
dism.,
693,
1946),
U.S.
67 S.Ct.
77,
app.
329
(E. & A.
N.J.L.
80-81
delegate decisional
(impermissible to
635,
(1947)
The 52:14F-8(b) applicable specifically be meant is hearing decisional adjudications where agency those exclusion, effect, sundered. functions have not been hearings to conduct administrative decisional officers enables are fully for this understandable. contested cases. The reasons noted, important that such be As sometimes it Further, agency. the decisional officer undertaken qf directly by cases the chief decisional certain contested officer, agency personnel, delegation subordinate without expertise in the cohesiveness and promote integrity, well may and, generally, enhance the process administrative decisional jurisdiction. Although pro- agency regulatory effectiveness of functions, the administra- cedurally distinct from other is not undertaken cases tive Rather, integral part it is administra- regulatory an vacuum. larger placed be within this and is regulation, properly tive of Hackensack v. City Cf. agency jurisdiction. framework of 30; Manufacturing v. New Winner, Corp. supra, Bally 82 N.J. at Commission, Jersey (1981) (con- Casino Control N.J. Thus, cases, curring opinion). exclusion of such Legislature the preservation ensured of such objectives as autonomy, responsibility, effectiveness expertise, may all of which when the served decisional officer of an agency directly personally conducts the hear- ing particular contested cases.
We must then address issue against the basic raised here background and frame reference. That issue is whether tribunal, appellate intermediate body where —one adjudications decisional officers both combine *11 be decisional functions —can considered the “head of the agency” in óf 52:14F-8(b). terms exclusion We see no statutory barrier to the conclusion that the appeal tribu- nal comes within exclusion. recognized appeal tribunal,
It has been that the as well as the review, by board of statute possesses delegated distinct adminis trative authority full or adjudicatory exercises decisional powers particular at its level. Johannesen v. N. J. of Dept. Labor, Sec., Div. Empl. N.J.Super. 507, of 73 (App.Div.1962); 510 see A. Karagheusian, 447, 457 also Krauss v. & M. N.J. (1953); 13 Review, v. Higgins N.J.Super. 535, Bd. of 33 538 (App.Div.1955). courts, occasion, Our upon contexts, albeit different have acknowledged that this complete statutory framework for the administrative processing disputed of unemployment compensa tion claims establishes a sharply defined administrative hier archy with and separate agencies distinct on each of its levels. Review, 538; E. g., Higgins v. Bd. of supra, N.J.Super. 33 at Wekearnyan Zuna, Federal Credit v. Union 130 (Sup. N.J.L. 69 Ct.1943); Dreer, Henry Comm., A. Inc. v. Comp. 149, 127 N.J.L. (Sup.Ct.1941). 150 Cf. International Tel. Tel.& 134, 428, v. Corp. 600, Local 419 609-610, U.S. S.Ct. (1975) (determination L.Ed.2d 570-571 an intermediate tribunal may agency be considered final action at that level for statute). Hence, purposes of the fear voiced the dissent that any low-level employee of a subordinate branch or division of an an head” qualify “agency hears cases can as agency who avoiding “deciding” thereby simple expedient cases— application of the unwarranted. 666. OAL—is Post at We body appellate that intermediate only determine in this case an and the essential statuto- statutory authority that has decisional reasonably can be tribunals ry characteristics an within the terms intendment considered as exemptions 8(b).6 vein, in this the Administrative noting, It is worth Act, seq., very pointedly pre- et Procedure 52:14B-1 functions of intermediate adjudicatory serves the status and Clearly the Leg- 52:14B-12. administrative tribunals. N.J.S.A. adjudica- eviscerating genuine agency sought islature to avoid structure, where a tion, deci- even within multi-level hearings. authorized conduct statutorily sional officer is General, there are Moreover, Attorney pointed as out adjudica- with intermediate very few administrative structures Consequently, in this Division case. tory tribunals similar to the not, words the result reached in this case does post its at dissent, infancy,” to undermine the OAL “threaten major adjudicatory We therefore conclude each as the board Division, appeal tribunals well bodies in the purposes head” for the review, “agency may considered *12 each is statute since em- the Law of Administrative Office contested of the powered complete adjudication render a statutory authority independent for its appeal basis 6The has an tribunal distinguishes it This from in the Division. hear and decide contested claims nonstatutory statutory judges, who are the successors administrative law APA, possess “presiding the much under examiners or officers” 43:21-6(d) See, g., responsibility. e. more limited decisional tribunal, providing appeal 52:14F-5(n). statutory the is the foundation of It cases, complete authority adjudicatory well as as hear decide purposes “agency” give of the statute. it the status of serves dissent, entities, post Thus, similarity two adverted to between the 667-668, significant is not in this context. at 660 respective and, level,
matters at its administrative tier at that highest authority constitutes “the ... authorized or required by law to adjudication render an in a contested case.” N.J.S.A. tribunal, 52:14B-2(d). The empow- which statute is ered to “hear and practice decide” contested cases and in does functions, not subdivide adjudicatory its would fall within the scope statutory 52:14F-8(b). exclusion exclusion of the contested cases of the comports tribunal with the intendment legislative scheme long constituting so as the person appeal tribunal practice undertakes hear both to and decide the contested cases before it. See, g., Bank, 275, e. Orange re Savings N.J.Super. (App.Div.1980).
Ill Appellant argument has made the additional Legisla- ture must have intended the inclusion of contested unemploy- compensation ment claims under OAL because this would paramount fulfill the legislative purpose of overcoming bias in adjudications of quasi-judicial agencies. Un- less, asserted, it is the hearings of contested unemployment compensation cases in the by indepen- Division are conducted dent administrative law under judges the direct authority OAL, Director of the is presumed bias that to attach to the examiners, subordinate agency employees, acting will not be overcome and the objectives of the reform program will be frustrated.
There is no question, as we have already acknowledged, that
primary
statutory purpose
legislation
establishing the
OAL was the elimination
or reduction of
bias in
decisional process of
quasi-judicial agencies.
Spon-
State
E. g.,
Statement,
Statement,
sor’s
supra;
supra;
Committee
Public
Hearings,
8-12, 15,
at
supra
17. See also Mazza v.
Cavicchia, supra,
(Jacobs, J.,
We in no not 52:14F-8(b) should be .construed or provided in N.J.S.A. conquered the new sought to be applied so that evils however, that the ignored, to It cannot be continue survive. endeavoring sanitize administrative hear- Legislature, while stature, weaken essential ings, way in no to erode or sought agencies. The of state administrative structure and function regulatory duties and furtherance of the fundamental agencies, preservation of of responsibilities autonomy, and the continued need agency integrity and experience of the administrative application expertise encompassed important all desiderata adjudicatory process were designed im- major governmental generally reform administrative law the prove quality justice uplift State. that exception was carved out so these
The N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8 submerged by laudatory OAL’s objectives would not be agency bias in administrative extirpate potential commitment to Hence, firmly few established and respect with to a hearings. agen- problem agencies, perhaps where highly specialized or excessive was thought patent was not cy bias considerations, Legislature specifically other outweighed by their contested cases from excluded the conduct of 52:14F-8(a); Sponsor’s coverage See N.J.S.A. the OAL. Statement, objectives were served supra. These also b of 52:14F-8 more of subsection general exclusion in which the decisional officer under- applicable any agency full and com- cases and thus exercises takes to hear contested exemp- At the root of this plete adjudicatory responsibilities. that administrative legislative insight tion is the function, or removed agency an isolated not be viewed as should regulation, or divorced larger from the framework agency. responsibilities general jurisdictional from the at Ante problems follow add it does not
We would contemplated by adjudications genre bias even in the *14 52:14F-8(b) were the disregarded by Legislature. N.J.S.A. the case of like the Division of and Insurance, Disability Temporary Legislature might the well have bias already believed that concerns for administrative were adequately by compensation the unemployment addressed which provides impartiality process.7 the administrative
IY reasons, For foregoing we now that hold of compensation within unemployment cases the Division of Unemployment Temporary Disability and by Insurance appeal tribunals and board of review is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Law under Office Administrative N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8(b) so as such long hearings continue to be conducted directly individually by persons and have appoint- who been ed to each and constitute its decisional officers.
Affirmed. POLLOCK, JJ., dissenting.
PASHMAN and agree We majority with the contested unem- ployment insurance claims before the Board Review are conducted agency” “the head and thus are excluded from the of the Office of (OAL) Administrative Law However, under 52:14F-8(b). N.J.S.A. disagree we with the majority’s exemption applies conclusion also to claims required by law, appoint power personnel, 7As federal the Director’s all including attorneys experts, subject requirements. is to civil service 43:21-11(d). “[Ajll positions” required by persons are to “be filled appointed nonpartisan selected eligible aon from merit basis lists of persons” particular, appeal required under civil service. Id. In tribunals are “impartial” appointment pursuant to be and their based on merit to the Civil L.1977, 43:21-6(d) (as 307, 3, Service statutes. c. amended § 1, January contemporaneously passage effective almost with the statute). Similarly, representative OAL board of review members must be employer interests, strictly employee appointed both on the basis of merit according list,” eligible specifically disqualified to a “civil service and are 43:21-10(d). case in which he or she has an interest. N.J.S.A. holding majority’s Because the tribunal. heard disregards plain language tribunal concerning dangerously broad scheme of the statute and substitutes Legislature, we expressly for the one created exemptions dissent. especially from the scheme trou- departure
This enacted, Act, designed was bling recently because the OAL so with respect “to improve quality justice c. 67. We hearings.” Committee Statement S. 766—L. *15 this approves goal. the of Yet in majority have no doubt that jurisdiction to on the opportunity this first rule very Court’s Law, majority chosen the the has Office Administrative jurisdiction, only by disregarding a attainable restrict that result the terms of the act itself. Act majority’s reading regrettable. narrow of the OAL
The salutary reform of important part The OAL Act is an procedure Legislature which the has administrative law and years. in The Administrative Procedure Act undertaken recent (APA), was in 1969 with the seq., 52:14B-1 et enacted and parties opportu- notice the purpose assuring interested proceedings. This reform was nity to be heard in administrative passage carried with significantly further impartiality provide Act. Act was to OAL The aim OAL hearings greatly reducing the objectivity were conducted number in which such instances subordinate, subservient, possibly who were hearing officers by replacing hearing this end agency heads. It achieves judges. independent officers with perceive this strongly need Legislature So did of administrative desirability creating system a uniform agencies that the OAL Act cre- adjudication throughout State jurisdiction of two only exemptions ates classes of from provides N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8. It Office of Administrative Law. admin- “[ujnless agency,” is made specific request assigned to hear contested cases judges istrative law shall not be to, first, respect with Board of the Public Parole, State Relations [t]he Commission, Employment
Division of Workers’ the Division of Tax or to Compensation, Appeals, 52:14B-2(a)]. 52:14F-8(a)] not within [N.J.S.A. [N.J.S.A. This exclusion not plainly apply does to contested unemployment insurance claims in the Division of and Tempo- rary Disability Insurance.1 exclusion, upon
The relied by majority second case, is for agency, matter where the head of the a commissioner or [a]ny several are commissioners, or determine to conduct, conduct required 52:14F-8(b)] [N.J.S.A. directly-and individually. statutorily empowered Board of Review is “to act as a final appeals agency, board” within its the Division of Unemployment and Temporary Disability, “in cases of benefit disputes.” N.J. 43:21-10(d). S.A. In this “the regard it is head of the agency,” a term defined in the APÁ as group “the individual or of individu- als constituting highest authority within any agency autho- rized or required by law to render an in a contested 52:14B-2(d). Therefore, cases presently case.”. heard by the Board of Review are excluded from the the OAL by the terms of the statute.
A regard similar with conclusion to an tribunal cannot plain with the terms of the squared exemptions adopted by *16 the Legislature. Consequently, support order to its holding, the majority is forced to rely on a number of untenable assump- tions. assumption
The argument central to its is that the statutory provided exclusion 52:14F-8(b) in N.J.S.A. is intended apply arguable given 1It is certainly the rationale for these specific exemp tions, that the enumerated “are entities devoted specialized solely highly (1976) areas," Committee Statement to S. 1811 specialized at 3, as much to the applies Division of Temporary Insurance as it Disability does, to the Division of Workers’ say, Compensa Legislature tion. However, the declined to include the Division of Unemploy ment agen within the list of Temporary Disability specifically exempted (a) although cies of subsection it must have been aware that it certainly could have done so. functions adjudications where and decisional agency Although might have been a separated. have not been excluding certain administrative matters reasonable basis for OAL, it was not the basis chosen jurisdiction from the the Legislature. 52:14F-8(b) Legislature terms of
By express of the OAL those only excluded from the adminis- e., agency,” which “the head of the i. trative matters in subject, with the final authority officer within the on elects or is to hear the matter. The exclusion does not required when the matter is heard a lower-level officer apply within who to render a empowered is not final decision. “agen-
The is the definition of key. majority’s analysis to the pertinent part in the APA in cy.” This term is defined ... each of the in the executive branch of the State principal departments agencies, and all coun- boards, divisions, commissions, Government, departments, existing offices or officers within now or cils, authorities, departments promulgate authorized statute make, adopt hereafter established and adjudicate added)] 52:14B-2(a) (emphasis rules or contested cases .... [N.J.S.A. fall within this definition? appeal Does an tribunal The “appeal Commissioner concedes that the so-called tribunal” is consisting each of a actually “many separate single tribunals Nonetheless, majority examiner.” concludes that each of one-person separate agency.” these tribunals is a “intermediate appeal concedes that the determinations majority higher tribunal to a level.” Ante at 654. “may appealed Nonetheless, appeal that the tribunal is majority believes from the agency” also “head of excluded OAL Act because a complete adjudication “empowered tribunal is to render a respective contested matters at its administrative tier.” “[A]t level,” majority says, tribunal constitutes “ to render an highest authority ‘the ... authorized 52:14B-2(d).” adjudication in a contested case.’ N.J.S.A. Ante (emphasis added). at 659-660 Yet even within its own “adminis- trative complete tier” the tribunal does not render “a *17 decision, its if not ten
adjudication,” appealed because within “shall be deemed to be the final decision of the days, board of review," added). 43:21-6(c) (emphasis Even where the Review, contested case is not to the Board of the final appealed higher authority decision is attributed to that rather than the appeal tribunal. violence analysis thus does to the majority’s meaning and simply
intent of the An tribunal is not statute. agency,” head of an either “agency” “the within the according definition of to their usage. those terms or common exempt The majority’s holding will from the Act every empow- OAL low-level administrative officer ered to hear initial cases and to make determinations and thereby abridge scope will of the OAL Act in greatly way which Legislature could not have intended. Paradoxically, the majority recognizes “signal improvement” that the act was “the corps independent hearing establishment of a ” officers, referred to as ‘administrative law judges.’ Ante at holding today first to construe the But its exclu- —the sionary provisions majority of the act—the engages a tortu- ous exercise in statutory construction reach a result unsup- ported by vastly the statute which reduces the role of adminis- trative law judges in administrative decision-making in New Jersey.
It is not difficult either to understand or to rationalize the Legislature’s exclusionary scheme. It leads to the sensible re- sult that when matters are heard and decided the highest decision-making authority agency, in the the use of administra- tive judges cases, will required. not be In these high-level that such Legislature agency personnel believed could be expected provide procedurally a fair and correct hearing would, addition, expertise bring their in the area of regulation However, to bear on the case. previously matters officers, heard by lower-level whose decisions were appealable higher authority agency itself, within the Legislature plausibly concluded that a fairer administrative *18 officers, process part-time if those often would result investigative prosecuto- or employees participating and often adjudications, rial were replaced by functions as well as law expert members of a full-time corps establish, judges. addition, intended to as far Legislature the as practical, a uniform of administrative system It con- among government. the within many State against sidered other Act but decided exclusions from the OAL them. The now wishes for the majority to substitute its wisdom Legislature’s reasoning.
Our conclusion the by striking similarity is further buttressed of the law relationship judge between an administrative and the hand, head of the and that between the agency, on the one Review, appeal on tribunal and the Board of the other. The judge recommended decision law of an administrative “deemed adopted as the final decision head agency” reject if the not modify head of the does 52:14B-10(c). decision within the statutory period. above, supra at Similarly, as has been noted the decision of an appeal tribunal is to be the final decision of the “deemed board of review” is initiated either of appeal unless further parties 43:21-6(c), (e). or by the Board of Review. N.J.S.A. parallelism support This conclusion that the only not lends Legislature judges law to take the place intended administrative tribunals, any argument undermines but also positions some the two would imagined differences between law judges make the substitution of administrative tribunals infeasible. practical recognize
We hasten to add that we difficulties presently might which result if the case load handled judges.2 It appeal tribunals were shifted to administrative considered, that, it better to may things well be all would be 41,888 appeals 2The Commissioner were filed with the states that in 34,784 appeals tribunal and that decisions were rendered. It be that the may undisturbed. even present system leave the alone, with that would Legislature, squarely question if faced claims determined insurance exempt unemployment Office appeal tribunal from Legisla- belongs Administrative Law. But the decision ture, not admit the present not to this statute does Court. majority which to it in this given construction has been *19 to the OAL Act case—a construction which threatens undermine infancy. in its from and would hold judgment majority
We dissent that, now seq., under the 52:14F-1 et claims terms of N.J.S.A. heard tribunal of Division of jurisdiction to Temporary Disability must transferred Law to be heard administra- of the Office Administrative judges.3 tive law CLIFFORD, SULLIVAN,
For affirmance—Justices and HANDLER—4. SCHREIBER AN and For reversal—Justices PASHM POLLOCK—2. COPYGRAPHICS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, LALLY, v. ANN JO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. February April 1981—Decided Argued great give opportunity prepare to handle this 3In order OAL an load, opportunity provide with an increase in case the Commissioner legislation exempting seek tribunals from OAL, delay for a reasonable we would effective date of such decision period.