Local 195, IFPTE, AFL-CIO v. State
| Decision Date | 23 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,A |
| Parties | , 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2214, 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2535 In the Matter of LOCAL 195, IFPTE,ppellant, and STATE of New Jersey, Respondent. In the Matter of STATE of New Jersey, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, and STATE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, a/w N. J. Civil ServiceAssociation/N. J. State Employees Association (Primary Level Supervisors Unit),Respondent and Cross-Appellant. In the Matter of STATE of New Jersey, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, and N. J. CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION/N. J. STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION(Administrative & Clerical Services Unit), Respondent and Cross-Appellant. In the Matter of STATE of New Jersey, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, and N. J. CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION/N. J. STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (ProfessionalUnit), Respondent and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Andrew F. Zazzali, Jr., and Dennis J. Alessi, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae State AFL-CIO (Zazzali & Kroll, Newark, attorneys).
Sanford R. Oxfeld, Newark, for appellant Local 195 IFPTE, AFL-CIO (Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).
Richard H. Greenstein, Newark, for respondent and cross-appellant State Supervisory Emp. Ass'n, etc., et al. (Fox & Fox, Newark, attorneys).
Sidney H. Lehmann, Gen. Counsel, Trenton, for respondent Public Employment Relations Com'n (Sidney H. Lehmann, Trenton, attorney; Sidney H. Lehmann and Don Horowitz, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Trenton, on the briefs).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -21, provides for collective bargaining between the State of New Jersey and public employee unions. During contract negotiations between the State and Local 195 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO (Local 195) 1 and between the State and State Supervisory Employees Association (Association), 2 disputes arose over the negotiability of several provisions. Once again we must determine the scope of collective bargaining for public employees.
From late 1978 to early 1979, the State and Local 195 were engaged in collective negotiations on a contract to run from July 1979 to June 1981. During the course of the negotiations, the negotiability of several contractual provisions came into question. The disputed clauses concerned (1) limitations on contracting and subcontracting, (2) the establishment of a workweek, and (3) transfer and reassignment determinations. Unable to reach agreement, the parties filed a joint petition for a scope of negotiations determination with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) on May 31, 1979. 3 N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(d).
On January 4, 1980, PERC held that the disputed contracting/subcontracting and workweek provisions, and portions of the transfer and reassignment provisions, were mandatorily negotiable. In re Local 195, IFPTE, AFL-CIO, PERC No. 80-85, 6 NJPER 32 (1980). In deciding that subcontracting was a negotiable issue, PERC relied on its earlier cases, 4 arguing that subcontracting must be mandatorily subject to negotiation since
a decision to subcontract would effectively terminate the employment relationship vis-a-vis the employees in a negotiations unit and would have a "cataclysmic effect on wages, hours, and working conditions...." (Slip op. at 6)
On October 6, 1980, the Appellate Division substantially affirmed PERC's determinations regarding the workweek and the transfer and reassignment provisions. 176 N.J.Super. 85, 422 A.2d 424 (1980). 5 The court divided on the negotiability of subcontracting. The majority reversed PERC and held that the determination to subcontract work is an inherent managerial prerogative. Judge Morgan dissented, arguing that the majority had failed to consider the interests of public employees in reaching its decision. Applying a balancing test, Judge Morgan would have found subcontracting to be a mandatorily negotiable issue.
Because of the dissent below, this case comes before the Court on appeal as of right. R. 2:2-1(a)(2).
The State of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Supervisory Employees Association, New Jersey Civil Service Association and the New Jersey State Employees Association began negotiations in late 1978 for a contract to run from July 1979 to June 1981. During the negotiations, dispute arose over the negotiability of the same three topics at issue in Local 195.
The State filed three petitions for scope of negotiations determinations with PERC on May 25, 1979. 6 On August 28, 1979, PERC held that the subcontracting and workweek provisions were mandatorily negotiable. It further held some of the reassignment provisions negotiable because they reflected procedural concerns of the employees rather than substantive policy determinations by the employer. In the Matter of State and State Supervisory Employees Association, PERC No. 80-19, 5 NJPER 381 (1979). Those provisions that were substantive in nature were held to be non-negotiable.
Relying on the majority opinion in Local 195, supra, the Appellate Division again held subcontracting to be a non-negotiable subject. As in Local 195, Judge Morgan dissented on the issue of subcontracting. The Appellate Division also substantially affirmed PERC's determinations regarding the workweek and reassignment provisions. Unlike PERC, however, the Appellate Division held that provisions regarding (1) the applicability of seniority in transfer determinations, and (2) the transfer of Association officers and stewards, were non-negotiable subjects.
An appeal as of right was taken by the Association on the subcontracting provision, under R. 2:2-1(a)(2). In addition, the Supreme Court granted certification on the transfer and reassignment provisions, upon petition by the Association, and on the workweek provision, upon petition by the State.
Public employees in New Jersey have a constitutional right to organize and present "grievances and proposals" to public employers through representatives of their own choosing. N.J.Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 19. The parameters of collective negotiations about such proposals were established in 1968 by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -21, and later by judicial decisions.
The central issue in a scope of negotiations determination is whether or not a particular subject matter is negotiable. This depends on careful consideration of the legitimate interests of the public employer and the public employees. The process of balancing those competing interests is constrained by the policy goals underlying relevant statutes and by the Constitution.
The Legislature has recognized that, like private employees, public employees have a legitimate interest in engaging in collective negotiations about issues that affect "terms and conditions of employment." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. However, the scope of negotiations in the public sector is more limited than in the private sector. 7 This is so because the employer in the public sector is government, which has special responsibilities to the public not shared by private employers. 8 What distinguishes Matters of public policy are properly decided, not by negotiation and arbitration, but by the political process. This involves the panoply of democratic institutions and practices, including public debate, lobbying, voting, legislation and administration. We have stated that
the State from private employers is the unique responsibility to make and implement public policy. In the Matter of Paterson Police PBA Local No. 1 v. Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 86, 432 A.2d 847 (1981); State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 67, 393 A.2d 233 (1978).
the very foundation of representative democracy would be endangered if decisions on significant matters of governmental policy were left to the process of collective negotiations ... Our democratic system demands that governmental bodies retain their accountability to the citizenry. (Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 163, 393 A.2d 278 (1978) )
We have therefore divided subjects of public employment negotiation into two categories: "mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment and non-negotiable matters of governmental policy." Id. at 162, 393 A.2d 278.
The role of the courts in a scope-of-negotiations case is to determine, in light of the competing interests of the State and its employees, whether an issue is appropriately decided by the political process or by collective negotiations. In making this sensitive determination, the mere invocation of abstract categories like "terms and conditions of employment" and "managerial prerogatives" is not helpful. 9 To determine whether a subject is negotiable, the Court must balance the competing interests by considering the extent to which collective negotiations will impair the determination of governmental policy.
Our opinions on public employment have established a three-part test for scope-of-negotiations determinations. 10 First, a subject is negotiable only if it "intimately and directly affect(s) the work and welfare of public employees...." In re Paterson Police PBA, 87 N.J. at 86, 432 A.2d 847; Bd. of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, supra, 81 N.J. at 591, 410 A.2d 1131; State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, supra, 78 N.J. at 67, 393 A.2d 233. The prime examples of subjects that fall within this category are rates of pay and working hours. Bd. of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, supra, 81...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
83 Hawai'i 378, State of Hawai'i Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. Society of Professional Journalists-University of Hawai'i Chapter
...[the agency's] statutory obligations to the public merely by contracting to do so with [the] plaintiff"); In re IFPTE Local 195 v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 443 A.2d 187, 191-92 (1982) (noting that "the scope of negotiations in the public sector is more limited than in the private sector" because......
-
Rutgers, State University v. Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters
... ... Of the relevant actors at the local level, only school boards have a primary responsibility to the public at ... Page 220 ... In re IFPTF Local 195 v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 418, 443 A.2d 187 (1982). Likewise, a proposal ... Such contractual provisions are encouraged. See In re IFPTE Local 195 v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 409, 443 A.2d 187 (1982). Cf. Matter of ... ...
-
Amalgamated Transit Union Intern., AFL-CIO v. Donovan
...note 12.18 See, e.g., Local 195, IFPTE v. State of New Jersey, 176 N.J.Super. 85, 422 A.2d 424 (1980), aff'd in relevant part, 88 N.J. 393, 443 A.2d 187 (1982); see also cases discussed in LABOR RELATIONS LAW IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, ch. 4, supra note 12.19 MARTA asserts that the right to disc......
-
Barila v. Bd. of Educ. of Cliffside Park
... ... New Jersey School Boards Association and New Jersey State League of Municipalities (Cynthia J. Jahn, General Counsel, ... scope of negotiations by adding to the three-factor Local 195 5 scope-of-negotiations standard a fourth ... ...
-
A Florida public employer's decision to subcontract is a statutory management right.
...a 1982 New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Local 195, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO v. State, 88 N.J. 393,443 A.2d 187 (N.J. 1982),[6] the commission stated that the decision to subcontract is a "political question" that involves the restructuring ......