Collective Bargaining continues to be
mugged by the reality of today
Once again, the Public Employee Relations
Commission (PERC) has continued its assault
on the rights and privileges of every law enforcement officer and firefighter in the state of New
Jersey. In the Bridgewater case (which follows
the Atlantic County decision), PERC has ruled
that, upon the expiration of the collective barGEORGE F.
gaining agreement, movement through the
O’BRIEN
salary guide fails to qualify as a matter of law to
be a term and condition of employment, stating
that it is not mandatorily negotiable nor legally arbitrable.
In the Matter of Township of Bridgewater
(Petitioner)
And
Bridgewater Township Local 174 (Respondent)
Docket No. SN-2014-004
On July 22, 2013, the Township of Bridgewater filed a Scope
of Negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by Bridgewater Township Local 174.
The grievance alleged that the Township violated the parties’
expired collective negotiations agreement and past practice
when it refused to pay annual salary increments. The Township’s request for a restraint of arbitration was granted.
The Township filed briefs and exhibits. The PBA filed a brief
and exhibit. Neither party filed a certification. See N.J.A.C.
19:13-3.6 (f)1.
The parties were signatory to a series of collective negotiations agreements, the last of which expired on Dec. 31, 2012.
On Dec. 20, 2012, Township Administrator James T. Naples
issued a memorandum to Local 174 President Robert Reilly
informing him that the Township would not be paying “step
increases” in 2013 unless a successor agreement is in place,
despite the Township’s previous practice of paying salary
increments based on the prior agreement’s rates while no new
agreement was in place.
Article XV of the expired agreement, entitled “Compensation” provides, in pertinent part:
Salary Guide. Effective Jan. 1, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the
wage rates shall be those set forth in Appendix A and will be
paid on the 15th and second-to-last day of the month, or
immediately preceding work day.
Article XIX of the expired agreement, entitled “Duration of
Agreement” provides, in pertinent part:
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect during
collective negotiations between the parties beyond the date
of expiration set forth herein until the parties have mutually
agreed on a new agreement.
On Jan. 4, 2013, the Local 174 initiated a grievance alleging
that the Township’s failure to pay salary increments violates
the collective negotiations agreement and past practice. The
Township denied the grievance through the steps of the procedure. On Jan. 28, Local 174 demanded binding arbitration.
This petition ensued.
In the interim, the parties continued to negotiate for a successor collective negotiations agreement. Following three
negotiations sessions and three mediation sessions, the
parties ultimately proceeded to Interest Arbitration through
the Township’s June 6, 2014 Petition to Initiate Compulsory
Interest Arbitration. To date, no interest arbitration award has
been issued.
The Commission addressed the abstract issue of whether
the subject matter in dispute was within the scope of collective
negotiations and did not consider the merits of the grievance
or any contractual defenses that the employer presented.
The scope of negotiations for police officers and firefighters
is broader than for other public employees because N.J.S.A.
34:13A-16 provides for a permissive, as well as a mandatory,
category of negotiations. Paterson Police PBA No. 1 v. City of
Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 92-93 (1981), outlines the steps of a scope
of negotiations analysis for firefighters and police:
Arbitration is permitted if the subject of the grievance is
mandatorily or permissively negotiable. See Middletown
Tp., P
.E.R.C. No. 82-90, 8 NJPER 227 (¶13095 1982), affirmed
CONTINUED ON PAGE 18
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■
APRIL 2015
17