Board of Ed. of City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n
| Decision Date | 20 November 1973 |
| Citation | 64 N.J. 1,311 A.2d 729 |
| Parties | , 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2137, 72 Lab.Cas. P 53,198 The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ENGLEWOOD TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant. . Re |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Theodore M. Simon, Hopatcong, for defendant-appellant.
Sidney Dincin, Englewood, for plaintiff-respondent.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The plaintiff Board of Education of Englewood filed complaints in the Chancery Division seeking to restrain the defendant Englewood Teachers Association from proceeding to arbitration of alleged grievances under the agreement between them for the 1971--73 school years. Answers were filed along with a counterclaim which is not now before us. The Chancery Division entered judgments of restraint and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Division. We certified before argument there and heard the matters along with Dunellen Board of Education v. Dunellen Education Association, 64 N.J. 17, 311 A.2d 737 (1973) which was decided today.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A--1 et seq. the Englewood Board entered into a written agreement with the Englewood Teachers Association as the recognized representative of the teachers and other personnel in the Englewood school system. The agreement contained numerous provisions but only those which relate to the several matters at hand and are relied on by the parties need be dealt with here. One of the matters involved four special education teachers who were employed by the Board to teach trainable, retarded children at the Engle Street School. Their customary working hours were from 8:45 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. whereas the customary working hours of teachers of non-handicapped children were from 8:45 A.M. to 3:15 p.M. The official school hours for students were from 9 A.M. to 3 P.M. and the agreement set forth, in Article VII captioned 'Teaching Goals and Conditions,' that 'teachers are expected to be in the school building fifteen minutes befofe the official arrival time of students at the beginning of the school day and to remain in the school building at the end of such day fifteen minutes after the students have been dismissed.' The agreement made no mention of the special education teachers but it contained, in Article XXX captioned 'Miscellaneous Provisions,' a general 'Savings Clause' which set forth in part that 'unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, nothing contained herein shall be interpreted and/or applied so as to eliminate, reduce nor otherwise detract from any teacher benefit existing prior to its effective date.'
During the term of the agreement the Board unilaterally changed the hours of employment of the four special education teachers to conform with the longer hours of the other teachers. Their working hours were thus lengthened without any additional compensation. They contended that this violated the agreement and the Association, acting on their behalf, pursued the four level internal grievance procedures provided for in the agreement. Being dissatisfied with the internal disposition of the grievance, the Association sought arbitration under Article III which provided that either party could request a list of arbitrators from the American Arbitration Association and that both the Board and the Teachers Association would then be bound by the Arbitration Association's rules and procedures in the selection of an arbitrator. The agreement provided that 'as to those grievances which involve decision of the meaning or interpretation of the language of this agreement, the arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding on the parties.' It further provided that as to all other grievances the arbitrator's decision shall be advisory only and that 'In deciding grievances, the arbitrator shall be without power or authority to make any decision contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way, the terms of this Agreement or of applicable law or rules or regulations having the force and effect of law involving Board discretion or policy under its rules and regulations which survive this Agreement; or limiting or interfering in any way with the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Board under applicable law.'
The Association's position was that the savings clause should be interpreted as having been intended to protect teachers, including the special education teachers, against such unilateral extensions of their preexisting working hours and it sought a binding arbitrator's decision to that effect. The Board's position, as set forth in its Chancery Division complaint, was that the matter was 'not arbitrable because it involves the hours of work of teachers' which the Board alone may decide and which decision it may not delegate in view of the terms of the education laws (Title 18A). The Chancery Division concluded that the matter was not arbitrable and entered a judgment restraining the Teachers Association from proceeding with the proposed arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Before us the parties have agreed that the issue of arbitrability is now properly before the Court for its adjudication. The Association contends that the agreement, insofar as it bore on hours, clearly related to 'the terms and conditions of employment' within the contemplation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A--5.3 and that its meaning or interpretation was clearly a proper subject for binding arbitration within the grievance procedures. On the other hand, the Board contends that the school laws precluded such arbitration and that, in any event, the dispute between the parties was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education for his determination under N.J.S.A. 18A:6--9.
In addition to the foregoing there were two other grievances which related not to hours of employment but to compensation or salary. The agreement embodied Article XIV captioned 'Professional Development Program.' That article set forth that the purpose of the program was to encourage teachers to pursue further studies. A teacher could make application for 50% Tuition reimbursement which would be reviewed by a committed and forwarded, with its recommendation, to the Superintendent for final action. Mr. Brodsky applied for reimbursement for two courses which he completed, one in 'Community Analysis' and the other in 'School Business Administration.' His application was denied but after the Association filed a grievance on his behalf, his application was reconsidered and he was reimbursed for one course...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hackensack v. Winner
...737 (1973); Burlington Cty. Col. Fac. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trustees, 64 N.J. 10, 16, 311 A.2d 733 (1973); Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 6-9, 311 A.2d 729 (1973). See Note, "Public Sector Labor Relations: The New Jersey Supreme Court Interprets the 1974 Amendments t......
-
Local 195, IFPTE, AFL-CIO v. State
...extend special education teachers' working hours without additional compensation was arbitrable, Bd. of Ed. Englewood v. Englewood Teachers, 64 N.J. 1, 311 A.2d 729 (1973), while on a broader scale school hours and school calendar were not negotiable, as the determination of the calendar is......
-
City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benev. Ass'n
..."need to determine on a case-by-case basis the subjects that are mandatorily negotiable"); Board of Educ. of the City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 7, 311 A.2d 729 (1973) (stating that lines between negotiability and non-negotiability are obscure and must be drawn cas......
-
Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed.
...test set forth in Dunellen Ed. Assn. v. Dunellen Bd. of Ed., 64 N.J. 17, 25, 311 A.2d 737 (1973) and Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 7, 311 A.2d 729 (1973), and today re affirmed in State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, supra, 78 N.J. at 67, 393 A.2d at 23......