Board of Ed. of City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers' Ass'n
| Decision Date | 27 June 1975 |
| Parties | , 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2074, 77 Lab.Cas. P 53,755 The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ENGLEWOOD TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association of seven (7) or more persons, Respondent-Respondent. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BOROUGH OF TENAFLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TENAFLY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Wittman, Anzalone, Bernstein & Dunn, Hackensack, for appellant Bd. of Ed. of City of Englewood (Thomas W. Dunn, Hackensack, on the brief).
Irving C. Evers, Hackensack, for appellant Bd. of Ed. of Borough of Tenafly.
Goldberg & Simon, Landing, for respondents Englewood Teachers' Assn. and Tenafly Teachers' Assn. (Theodore M. Simon, Landing, on the briefs).
David A. Wallace, Trenton, for Public Employment Relations Commission.
Lester Aron, Trenton, for amicus curiae New Jersey School Boards Assn.
Before Judges MATTHEWS, FRITZ and BOTTER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MATTHEWS, P.J.A.D.
Petitioners, Board of Education of the City of Englewood (Englewood) and Board of Education of the Borough of Tenafly (Tenafly), seek leave to appeal an 'interlocutory decision' of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) which denied injunctive relief to each of them pending the resolution of scope of negotiations proceedings. We grant leave to appeal solely on the issue as to whether PERC has jurisdiction to grant the restraints requested. The two appeals are consolidated, and pursuant to R. 2:11--2 we proceed to the merits.
We are not concerned with the merits of the issues which led to these proceedings. For the purposes of this decision it is sufficient that we note that both Englewood and Tenafly have disagreed with the claims of the education associations representing their faculties. Both education associations have invoked the arbitration clauses under the existing contracts between each of them and their respective boards of education. Both Englewood and Tenafly responded to the arbitration requests by seeking injunctive relief from the Chancery Division of this court. Both were advised by the Chancery Division judge that he had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and, accordingly, he refused to accept the complaints for filing. No appeal was taken from that action.
Thereafter, both Englewood and Tenafly applied to the State Department of Education, again seeking a stay of the respective arbitration proceedings. Again, they were advised that there was no jurisdiction in the State Department of Education.
Subsequently, both boards filed petitions with PERC for scope of negotiations determinations under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:13A--5.4(d). In their petitions both boards alleged that disputes had arisen with respect to certain matters which the associations have sought to process pursuant to collectively negotiated grievance procedures and concerning which the associations are attempting to invoke arbitration pursuant to their contract grievance procedures. In connection with the relief sought each board requested that PERC temporarily restrain arbitration during the pendency of the scope of negotiations proceedings. In seeking the temporary relief each board contended before PERC that if it prevailed on the merits, the associations would not be entitled to proceed to arbitration.
PERC, under N.J.S.A. 34:13A--6(f), delegated its executive director to act on its behalf. After hearing the arguments of counsel he filed a formal opinion in which he concluded that PERC did not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:13A--5.4(d), although he did conclude that such jurisdiction did exist with respect to the unfair labor practice provisions of subsection 5.4(c). He stated:
* * * the Commission views scope of negotiations proceedings under subsection (d) in an entirely different light. The very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed.
...and thus not arbitrable, it must issue an injunction permanently restraining arbitration. See Bd. of Ed. of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers, 135 N.J.Super. 120, 124, 342 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1975). Moreover, we agree with the decision in Bd. of Ed. of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers, Supra, th......
-
Board of Ed. of City of Asbury Park v. Asbury Park Ed. Ass'n
...considered by the Commission, it has always been within the context of such proceedings. See Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 135 N.J.Super. 120, 342 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1975) (Commission has ability to grant interim relief during scope of negotiation cases; arbitration restr......
-
Newark Bd. of Ed. v. Newark Teachers Union, Local 481, AFT, AFL-CIO
...power" vested in it by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) may be properly and effectively exercised. See Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers, 135 N.J.Super. 120, 124-125, 342 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1975). The administrative process involved in proceedings under N.J.S.A. 34: 13A-5.4(c) is adjudicatory......
-
Red Bank Bd. of Ed. v. Warrington
...other situations in which arbitration may be restrained under the provisions of the Act. See Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers, 135 N.J.Super. 120, 124, 342 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1975). ...