Board of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School Dist. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional Ed. Ass'n

Decision Date04 February 1980
Docket NumberWOODSTOWN-PILESGROVE
Citation81 N.J. 582,410 A.2d 1131
Parties, 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2466 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF theREGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

John D. Jordan, Pennsville, for plaintiff-appellant (Jordan & Jordan, Pennsville, attorneys; Daniel A. Zehner, Woodstown, on the brief).

John E. Collins, Trenton, for amicus curiae New Jersey School Boards Association (David W. Carroll, Trenton, attorney; David W. Carroll and John E. Collins, Trenton, on the brief).

Mary L. Crangle, Haddonfield, for defendant-respondent (Tomar, Parks, Seliger, Simonoff & Adourian, Haddonfield, attorneys).

James R. Zazzali, Newark, for amicus curiae New Jersey Education Association (Zazzali, Zazzali & Whipple, Newark, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCHREIBER, J.

This controversy between plaintiff, Board of Education of the Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District (Board), and defendant, Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional Education Association (Association), the bargaining representative of the classroom teachers, arose out of a dispute over two additional hours that school teachers were required to work on the day before Thanksgiving.

The parties had entered into a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) covering the three-year period from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1978. The Agreement contained a general management rights provision that reserved to the Board "sole jurisdiction and authority over matters of policy" including, among others, the right "to direct employees of the school district" and "to maintain the efficiency of the school district operations." On the basis of this authority the Board on February 16, 1976 adopted the 1976-1977 school calendar. That schedule apparently modified a past practice of dismissing teachers and students at 1 p. m. on the day before Thanksgiving. The new calendar required instead a full school day ending at 3 p. m. The schedule was not distributed to the teachers until September 7. On October 25 the association filed a grievance objecting to the change. The Superintendent of Schools denied the grievance asserting that the filing was untimely.

The teachers worked two additional hours on November 24, 1976 and then promptly filed a second grievance seeking additional compensation. A hearing was held before the Superintendent of Schools on December 21, 1976. He did not submit his decision, which denied the relief, until December 28, 1976.

Thereafter the Association filed a third grievance. It asserted that since the Superintendent had not notified the Association of his decision within five days of the hearing as required by the Agreement, the Association's position was automatically sustained. When this grievance was denied, the Association brought the matter to arbitration.

The stipulated issue submitted to the arbitrator was whether the Superintendent's response to the second grievance violated the five day requirement in the Agreement, and, if so, what the remedy would be. The arbitrator found that the contractual provision had been breached and ordered the Board to pay the teachers for the two hours worked on November 24, 1976.

The Board filed a complaint in the Superior Court, Law Division, in which it demanded that the award be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Association counterclaimed seeking enforcement of the award. Upon the return day of an order to show cause, the trial court vacated the award. It held that the decision to keep the schools open an additional two hours was a managerial prerogative and, therefore, was not a proper subject for the grievance-arbitration process under the Agreement.

The Association appealed to the Appellate Division. That court, reasoning that the effect of the Board's decision increased the teachers' workload by two hours and thereby affected working terms and conditions, held the subject to be a proper one for negotiation. 164 N.J.Super. 106, 395 A.2d 884 (1978). Construing the terms of the Agreement, it found that the teachers were not obligated to work the additional two hours and were entitled to payment for that time. The arbitrator's order was reinstated and confirmed for that reason. We granted the Board's petition for certification. 81 N.J. 44, 404 A.2d 1144 (1979).

Preliminarily, we call attention again to our holding in State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 393 A.2d 233 (1978), wherein we stated that:

PERC (Public Employment Relations Commission) is the forum for the initial determination of whether a matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. PERC's jurisdiction in this area is primary. See Bd. of Ed. of Plainfield v. Plainfield Ed. Ass'n, 144 N.J.Super. 521, 524-525, 366 A.2d 703 (App.Div.1976). Newark Teachers Union v. Bd. of Ed. of Newark, 149 N.J.Super. 367, 354-375, 373 A.2d 1020 (Sic ) (Ch.Div.1977). No court of this State is empowered to make this initial determination. For a party dissatisfied with PERC's conclusion, appellate review of PERC's scope determinations is specifically provided by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(d). (Id. at 83, 393 A.2d at 247)

See also Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 153-154, 393 A.2d 278 (1978). The Appellate Division noted that since this proceeding was instituted and adjudicated by the trial court prior to State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, it would resolve the matter on the merits rather than remand the cause to PERC. Since an additional period of time has elapsed, the controversies substantially involve principles of law, and we are fully cognizant of the views of PERC, it is appropriate for us to discuss and resolve the matter. In the future, however, absent extraordinary circumstances, trial courts should transfer the matter to PERC to determine the scope issue. R. 1:13-4(a).

Two major issues are involved. First, was the matter one which the parties could properly negotiate and submit to binding arbitration. Second, should we uphold the arbitrator's decision that the failure of the Superintendent to timely notify the parties of his determination on the second grievance precluded the Board from disputing the teachers' claim.

I

The underlying question is the jurisdictional one of whether the subject matter was negotiable and subject to binding arbitration. 1 Its resolution depends upon several factors. Consideration must be given to whether the public employer is exercising an inherent or express managerial prerogative. The very nature of the activity or some statutory or constitutional grant of authority may indicate whether the function is managerial. It may involve the constitutional obligation delegated in part to the Board to provide a thorough and efficient education. See N.J.Const., Art. 8, § 4, par. 1; N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1. It may also arise out of commonly recognized management prerogatives such as the right to hire or direct the work force. Or it may follow from a nondelegable legislative directive.

If the public employer has acted pursuant to a managerial prerogative, the inquiry may end at this point. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 79-80, 393 A.2d 233. Thus, if it is " a matter of essential managerial prerogative which has been delegated by the Legislative to the Board (of Education)," it "cannot be bargained away." Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass'n, 79 N.J. 311, 321, 399 A.2d 620, 626 (1979). In other circumstances whether the function falls within the general category of management authority is only the first phase of the analysis. This may occur when a nonmanagerial decision or the effect of the exercise of a managerial prerogative is involved.

Under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, "terms and conditions" of employment are proper subjects of bargaining. Though not explicitly defined, a term and condition of employment "intimately and directly affect(s) the work and welfare of public employees . . .." State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 67, 393 A.2d at 239. Rates of pay and working hours would appear to be items most clearly falling within that category, Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 6, 311 A.2d 729 (1973), although many other factors may intimately and directly touch upon the welfare of the public employee.

Logically pursued, these general principles managerial prerogatives and terms and conditions of employment lead to inevitable conflict. Almost every decision of the public employer concerning its employees impacts upon or affects terms and conditions of employment to some extent. While most decisions made by a public employer involve some managerial function, ending the inquiry at that point would all but eliminate the legislated authority of the union representative to negotiate with respect to "terms and conditions of employment." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. Conversely to permit negotiations and bargaining whenever a term and condition is implicated would emasculate managerial prerogatives.

To attempt always to reconcile the two by isolating and focusing solely upon the impact or effect of a managerial decision would eliminate the significance of and frustrate prerogatives. 2 2 We reject that approach, 3 and have previously implied as much in State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 393 A.2d 233, and Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass'n, 79 N.J. 311, 399 A.2d 620. We are aware of PERC's position to the contrary. See In re Plainfield Bd. of Ed., 5 NJPER 418 (1979); In re Tenafly Bd. of Ed., 2 NJPER 75 (1976); In re City of Newark, 2 NJPER 139 (1976).

Justice Pashman in State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 393 A.2d 233, outlined the general guideline to resolve these conflicting policies. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Rutgers, State University v. Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • April 20, 1992
    ...... then make a final recommendation to the Board of Governors. The Promotion Instructions specify ... the Associate Dean for Administration, Law School, Newark; the Associate Dean for Student Life, ... See Bd. of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, 81 N.J. 582, ... personnel is not negotiable"); Matawan Regional Bd. of Ed., 6 NJPER 325, 327 (1980) ("provision ......
  • Local 195, IFPTE, AFL-CIO v. State, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 23, 1982
    ......of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, supra, 81 N.J. ...97, 103, 357 A.2d 302 (App.Div.1976) ("the board's right to select (the best qualified) candidates ... Unified School Dist. No. 1 of Racine County v. Wisconsin, 81 ... of Education of Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School District v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional ... State v. State Supervisory Employees Assn"., 78 N.J. at 90-91, 393 A.2d 233. .       \xC2"......
  • Montgomery County Educ. Ass'n, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Montgomery County, 57
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 28, 1987
    ......(1) of Education Article, empowers a public school employer and its employees' designated ... Relations Act, West Hartford Education Assn., Inc. v. DeCourcy, 162 Conn. 566, 578, 295 A.2d ...v. School Dist., 290 Or. 217, 235-236, 621 P.2d 547, 559 (1980) ......
  • Stone v. Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • March 16, 1981
    ......v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, Eugene Feldman,. Joseph ... jurisdiction, citing, Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg'l School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 164 N.J.Super. ... See: Union [435 A.2d 145] County Regional H. S. Board of Education v. Union County Regional ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT