Ramapo-Indian Hills Ed. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Ed.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1980
• Docket Number: RAMAPO-INDIAN
• Parties: , 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2062 HILLS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. RAMAPO INDIAN HILLS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner-Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 35

176 N.J.Super. 35

422 A.2d 90, 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2062

RAMAPO-INDIAN HILLS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. RAMAPO INDIAN HILLS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF

EDUCATION, Petitioner-Respondent and Cross-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 23, 1980.

Decided Oct. 10, 1980.

Theodore M. Simon, Clifton, for respondent-appellant and cross-respondent (Goldberg & Simon, Clifton, attorneys; Theodore Simon, Clifton, of counsel; Louis P. Bucceri, Clifton, on brief).

Jacob Green, East Orange, for petitioner-respondent and cross-appellant (Green, Koenig & Dzwilewski, East Orange, attorneys; Jacob Green, East Orange, of counsel; Ellen Harrison, East Orange, on brief).

Before Judges FRITZ, POLOW and JOELSON.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

POLOW, J. A. D.

For several years prior to the 1978-79 school year Keith Elvin was employed by petitioner board of education (board) as a teacher of instrumental music. Pursuant to terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the board and respondent education association (association), Elvin had a 7-hour and 45-minute in-school work day for which he was paid a salary commensurate with his educational qualifications and experience. In addition to his regular duties, Elvin voluntarily assumed extracurricular responsibilities as special school advisor in the position of band director, for which he received additional compensation in the sum of $1,400 annually.

For the 1978-79 school year Elvin decided not to assume the extracurricular duties. Thereupon, the board reviewed the structure and function of the positions of instrumental music teacher and band director and concluded that the educational needs of the school required a reorganization of the music program. Consequently, both positions which he had filled were abolished and, in their place, a full-time position of band director/music teacher was created. Compensation was set according to the teacher's salary scale plus a differential of $1,860 for the additional hours required to perform the necessary duties. The new position was offered to and accepted by Elvin, but the association filed a grievance on his behalf seeking binding arbitration. The board countered with a petition for a "scope of negotiations" determination by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC).

PERC enjoined arbitration with regard to hours of work but refused to restrain submission of the issue of compensation to arbitration. Both sides appeal, the association urging that hours of work and workload are mandatorily arbitrable and the board seeking a determination that PERC erred in permitting arbitration of the grievance concerning compensation.

When the grievance was originally submitted, the following relief was sought:

(1) removal of extracurricular responsibilities from Elvin's contract;

(2) reestablishment of the former instrumental music teacher position and extracurricular special school advisor position of band director;

(3) posting of the vacancy in the extracurricular program, and

(4) providing Elvin with compensation for band director activities pro rata based on his annual salary.

Subsequently, Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 393 A.2d 278 (1978), delineated the distinction between mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment and those which are within managerial prerogative and not arbitrable. The association recognized Ridgefield Park as prohibiting arbitration of the board's decision to consolidate the positions and withdrew its demands relating thereto. However, it persisted in its demand that the issues of hours, workload and compensation be submitted to arbitration.

PERC's "Decision and Order" states that all issues other than compensation were "disposed of by the concession that the consolidation of positions and assignment of Elvin are managerial prerogatives." While we are substantially in accord with its final conclusion, in our view PERC misconstrued the association's position. In its brief submitted to PERC the association insisted, as it does on this appeal, that "workload and hours" remain mandatorily negotiable along with the compensation issue despite its "concession."

Although it does not dispute the arbitration clause in the contractual grievance procedure, the board questions the legal propriety of arbitrating the effects of a managerial decision on teacher's hours, workload and compensation. The threshold issue of whether the subject matter of the grievance is within the scope of collective negotiations must be resolved by PERC. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., supra, 78 N.J. at 153-155, 393 A.2d 278. Because PERC has special expertise in this area, Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass'n, 79 N.J. 311, 316, 399A.2d 620 (1979), no court should make this initial determination. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 83, 393 A.2d 233 (1978). If PERC determines that the dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations, the grievance may proceed to arbitration. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., supra, 78 N.J. at 154, 393 A.2d 278. PERC will issue an injunction permanently restraining arbitration if it reaches a contrary conclusion. Ibid.

The New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., in dealing with the scope of collective bargaining, expressly authorizes negotiations with respect to "terms and conditions" of public employment. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3; State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, supra, 78 N.J. at 66, 393 A.2d 233. However, the Legislature did not define the phrase "terms and conditions," nor did it indicate which subjects are negotiable and which subjects are beyond the scope of negotiation. Dunellen Bd. of Ed. v. Dunellen Ed. Ass'n, 64 N.J. 17, 24, 311 A.2d 737 (1973). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature did not contemplate that local school boards could abdicate their management responsibility to implement local educational policies. Id. at 25, 311 A.2d 737. Consequently, to the extent that collective negotiations could fairly be accomplished without significant interference with management's educational responsibilities, local boards of education have the statutory responsibility to negotiate in good faith with their employees concerning matters which "intimately and directly affect" the employees' work and welfare. Ibid.

Dunellen's definition of the scope of negotiations was further refined in Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers' Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 311 A.2d 729 (1973), which stated that:

(M)ajor education policies which indirectly affect the working conditions of the teachers remain exclusively with the Board and are not negotiable whereas items which are not predominantly educational policies and directly affect the financial and personal welfare of the teachers do not remain exclusively with the Board and are negotiable. (at 7, 311 A.2d 729.)

The court in State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, supra, defined "scope of negotiations" as follows:

(N)egotiable terms and conditions of employment are those matters which intimately and directly affect the work and welfare of public employees and on which negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent management prerogatives pertaining to the determination of governmental policy. (78 N.J. at 67, 393 A.2d 233; citations omitted)

This definition was subsequently repeated in Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., supra, 78 N.J. at 156, 393 A.2d 278; Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass'n, supra, 79 N.J. at 320, 399 A.2d 620, and Woodstown-Pilesgrove, etc., Bd. of Ed. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove, etc., Ed. Ass'n, 81 N.J. 582, 590-591, 410 A.2d 1131 (1980). In the latter case, the definition was applied to express as well as inherent managerial prerogatives. Id. at 591, 410 A.2d 1131.

Boards of education and exclusive representatives of teaching staff members must negotiate upon and are free to agree to proposals governing any term and condition of employment as above defined, provided they have not been preempted by a specific statute or regulation which sets or controls a particular term and condition of employment. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, supra, 78 N.J. at 81, 393 A.2d 233. There are but two legislatively directed categories of subjects in public employment negotiation-mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment and nonnegotiable matters of government policy. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., supra, 78 N.J. at 162, 393 A.2d 278. The Legislature did not create a permissive category of negotiations in which the parties have the option of negotiating subjects in public employment labor relations. Id. at 162, 166, 393 A.2d 278.

The days and hours of work by individual teaching staff members, their workloads and compensation are traditionally negotiable terms and conditions of employment. Burlington Cty. College Faculty Ass'n v. Bd. of Trustees, 64 N.J. 10, 14, 311 A.2d 733 (1973). See, also, Woodstown-Pilesgrove, etc., Bd. of Ed. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove, etc., Ed. Ass'n, supra, 81 N.J. at 589, 410 A.2d 1131; Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Teachers' Ass'n, supra, 64 N.J. at 6-7, 311 A.2d 729. These matters appear to be the items the Legislature had in mind when it coined the phrase "terms and conditions of employment." Englewood, supra at 7, 311 A.2d 729. However, the mere fact that the subject of negotiations concerns hours, workload and compensation does not in itself make them mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment. Woodstown-Pilesgrove, supra. To be mandatorily negotiable, the terms and conditions of employment must not " 'significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent management prerogatives pertaining...