Board of Ed. of City of Plainfield v. Plainfield Ed. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 04 November 1976 |
| Citation | 144 N.J.Super. 521,366 A.2d 703 |
| Parties | , 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2221 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF PLAINFIELD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PLAINFIELD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Goldberg & Simon, Clifton, for defendant-appellant.
Murray, Meagher & Granello, Little Silver, for plaintiff-respondent (Robert J. Hrebek, Lake Hopatcong, on the brief).
Before Judges MATTHEWS, SEIDMAN and HORN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MATTHEWS, P.J.A.D.
We granted leave to appeal, solely to consider the issue of whether the trial divisions of this court have concurrent jurisdiction with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to consider and determine scope of negotiability questions under N.J.S.A. 34:13A--5.4(d), the specific items in dispute here being the number of preparation periods for teachers and the degree of teacher supervision in the cafeterias. The Law Division judge was of the view that the court had concurrent jurisdiction because the contract here involved antedated the Employer-Employee Relations Act (L.1974, c. 123), and neither party had requested PERC to determine whether the matters in dispute were within the scope of collective negotiations.
Defendant argues that PERC is the only appropriate forum for the resolution of such questions, even though the parties to this appeal may have contractually agreed that their collective negotiations problems would be resolved by a 'court of record.' It takes the position that the Superior Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider scope questions, and this was the legislative intent behind the amendments.
Plaintiff concedes that the legislation in question gives PERC jurisdiction to consider and resolve scope questions, but argues that the jurisdiction so conferred is concurrent with that of the Superior Court. In support of its position, plaintiff contends that the literal language employed in the amended statute confers exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practices to PERC, and confers only concurrent jurisdiction over scope questions to that body.
The pertinent sections of N.J.S.A. 34:13A--5, 4(c), (d) and (f) provide:
c. The commission shall have exclusive power as hereinafter provided to prevent anyone from engaging in any unfair practice listed in subsections a. and b. above. Whenever it is charged that anyone has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair practice, the commission, or any designated agent thereof, shall have authority to issue and cause to be served upon such party a complaint stating the specific unfair practice charged and including a notice of hearing containing the date and place of hearing before the commission or any designated agent thereof; provided that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge in which event the 6 months period shall be computed from the day he was no longer so prevented.
In any such proceeding, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act P. L.1968, c. 410 (C. 52:14B--1 et seq.) shall be applicable. Evidence shall be taken at the hearing and filed with the commission. If, upon all the evidence taken, the commission shall determine that any party charged has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair practice, the commission shall state its findings of fact and conclusions of law and issue and cause to be served on such party an order requiring such party to cease and desist from such unfair practice, and to take such reasonable affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of this act. All cases in which a complaint and notice of hearing on a charge is actually issued by the commission, shall be prosecuted before the commission or its agent, or both, by the representative of the employee organization or party filing the charge or his authorized representative.
d. The commission shall at all times have the power and duty, upon the request of any public employer or majority representative, to make a determination as to whether a matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. The commission shall serve the parties with its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Any determination made by the commission pursuant to this subsection may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
f. The commission shall have the power to apply to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court for an appropriate order enforcing any order of the commission issued under subsection c. or d. hereof, and its findings of fact, if based upon substantial evidence on the record as a whole, shall not, in such action, be set aside or modified; any order for remedial or affirmative action, if reasonably designed to effectuate the purposes of this act, shall be affirmed and enforced in such proceeding. (Emphasis supplied)
It is elementary that a grant of authority to an administrative agency is to be liberally construed so as to enable the agency to discharge its statutory responsibilities. In re Promulgation of Rules of Practice, 132 N.J.Super. 45, 48--49, 332 A.2d 209 (App.Div.1974). In short, the authority delegated to an administrative agency should be construed so as to permit the fullest accomplishment of the legislative intent. Cammarata v. Essex Cty. Park Comm'n, 26 N.J. 404, 411, 140 A.2d 397 (1958). Moreover, when construing a statutory enactment it is fundamental that the general intention of the act controls the interpretation of its parts. Hackensack Water Co. v. Ruta, 3 N.J. 139, 147, 69 A.2d 321 (1949). All statutory provisions are to be related and effect given to each if such be reasonably possible. Jamouneau v. Harner, 16 N.J. 500, 513, 109 A.2d 640 (1954).
In Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers, 135 N.J.Super. 120, 124--125, 342 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1975), we reversed a determination reached by PERC that it did not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief under the provisions of subsection (d)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed.
...See State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 393 A.2d 233 (1978); Bd. of Ed. of Plainfield v. Plainfield Ed. Ass'n, 144 N.J.Super. 521, 524-526, 366 A.2d 703 (App.Div.1976); Newark Teachers Union v. Bd. of Ed. of Newark, 149 N.J.Super. 367, 374-375, 373 A.2d 1020 (Ch.Div.1977......
-
Cabarle v. Governing Body of Pemberton Tp.
...and interpreted harmoniously. See Hoffman v. Hock, 8 N.J. 397, 406-07, 86 A.2d 121 (1952); Plainfield Bd. of Ed. v. Plainfield Ed. Ass'n, 144 N.J.Super. 521, 524, 366 A.2d 703 (App.Div.1976). This canon requires a linkage of the language fixing the term of office "at the pleasure of the gov......
-
Board of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional School Dist. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional Ed. Ass'n
...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 )......
-
Byram Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Byram Tp. Ed. Ass'n
...of scope questions, with primary jurisdiction over the subject matter vested in PERC. Plainfield Bd. of Ed. v. Plainfield Ed. Ass'n, 144 N.J.Super. 521, 525, 366 A.2d 703 (App.Div.1976). See also, In re Hoboken Teachers' Ass'n, 147 N.J.Super. 240, 371 A.2d 99 The 1974 amendments to the act ......