Rozenblit v. Lyles

• Decision Date: 03 February 2021
• Docket Number: 083434,A-42 September Term 2019,A-41 September Term 2019
• Citation: 243 A.3d 1249,245 N.J. 105
• Parties: Moshe ROZENBLIT, and Won Kyu Rim, Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Marcia V. LYLES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Jersey City Board of Education, Vidya Gangadin, in her official capacity as President of the Jersey City Board of Education, and Jersey City Public Schools of the City of Jersey City, Defendants, and Jersey City Board of Education, Defendant, and Jersey City Education Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

245 N.J. 105

243 A.3d 1249

Moshe ROZENBLIT, and Won Kyu Rim, Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants,

v. Marcia V. LYLES, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Jersey City Board of Education, Vidya Gangadin, in her official capacity as President of the Jersey City Board of Education, and Jersey City Public Schools of the City of Jersey City, Defendants,andJersey City Board of Education, Defendant,andJersey City Education Association, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

A-41 September Term 2019

A-42 September Term 2019

083434

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued October 13, 2020

Decided February 3, 2021

Leon Dayan, of the California and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent (Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, National Education Association, and Bredhoff & Kaiser, attorneys; Richard Friedman, Newark, Leon Dayan, Jason Walta, of the District of Columbia and Massachusetts bars, admitted pro hac vice, and John M. West, of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs).

Jonathan Riches, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents/cross-appellants (Law Offices of G. Martin Meyers and Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, attorneys; Justin A. Meyers and Jonathan Riches, on the briefs).

Steven R. Cohen, Mount Laurel, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Education Association (Selikoff & Cohen and New Jersey Education Association, attorneys; Steven R. Cohen, Keith Waldman, Hop T. Wechsler, Daniel R. Dowdy, Mount Laurel, and Aileen O'Driscoll, Newark, on the brief).

Flavio L. Komuves, Newark, argued the cause for amici curiae Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees, AFL-CIO and the Public Employee Committee of the New Jersey State AFL-CIO (Weissman & Mintz, attorneys; Flavio L. Komuves, Ira Mintz, Trenton, and Steven P. Weissman, on the brief).

Christine Lucarelli argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, attorneys; Christine Lucarelli, on the brief).

Mark Miller argued the cause for amici curiae Pacific Legal Foundation and Americans for Prosperity-New Jersey (Pacific Legal Foundation, attorneys; Steven Simpson, of counsel, and Mark Miller, on the brief).

Sanford R. Oxfeld, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae East Orange Education Association and Wayne Education Association (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys; Sanford R. Oxfeld and William P. Hannan, of counsel and on the brief).

Arnold Shep Cohen, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae IFPTE, Local 195, AFL-CIO (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys; Arnold Shep Cohen, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE PATTERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we consider statutory and constitutional challenges to provisions in a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) between the Jersey City School District (District) and the Jersey City Education Association (Association). The disputed provisions authorized two teachers, or "releasees," employed and compensated by the District to work full-time on the Association's "business and affairs," a practice known as "release time."

Plaintiffs Moshe Rozenblit and Won Kyu Rim sought a declaratory judgment holding that the District's payment of the salaries and benefits of employees on release time is contrary to the Gift Clause provisions of Article VIII, Section 2, Paragraph 1 ; Article VIII, Section 3, Paragraph 2 ; and Article VIII, Section 3, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution. Plaintiffs and the Association cross-moved before the trial court for summary judgment. The court held that the disputed provisions did not violate the Gift Clause. It denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted the Association's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims.

The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and invalidated the CNA's release time provisions on statutory grounds. Rozenblit v. Lyles, 461 N.J. Super. 20, 25-32, 218 A.3d 320 (App. Div. 2019). It held that N.J.S.A. 18A:30-7, the statute on which the Jersey City Board of Education (Board), the District, and the Association relied as authority for their agreement to the release time provisions, did not authorize the Board to disburse public funds to the two releasees. Id. at 28, 218 A.3d 320. The Appellate Division did not reach the constitutional issue raised by plaintiffs. Id. at 24-25, 218 A.3d 320. We granted the parties’ cross-petitions for certification.

We do not share the Appellate Division's view that the Board's agreement to the disputed provisions exceeded its statutory grant of authority. In the Education Code, the Legislature empowered boards of education to make rules governing the compensation of teachers, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4, and to fix "the payment of salary in cases of absence not constituting sick leave," N.J.S.A. 18A:30-7. The Legislature thus authorized the Board to grant a paid leave to the releasees to allow them to attend to labor relations work pursuant to the CNA. Moreover, because the releasees’ efforts encourage cooperative labor relations and facilitate the early resolution of employer-employee disputes, the CNA's release time provisions facilitate the Board's management of the public schools pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(c). The releasees also further the mediation and resolution of labor disputes in accordance with N.J.S.A. 34:13A-2, a provision of the Employer-Employee Relations Act (EERA). We conclude that the Board's payment of salaries and benefits to the releasees is within its statutory grant of authority.

We concur with the trial court that the Board did not violate the Gift Clause of the New Jersey Constitution when it agreed to the release time provisions in the CNA. Applying the standard prescribed in Roe v. Kervick, 42 N.J. 191, 218-19, 199 A.2d 834 (1964), and later case law, we conclude that the release time provisions serve a public purpose and are so consonant with the accomplishment of that public purpose that they do not offend the Gift Clause.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims.

I.

A.

We summarize the facts based on the record submitted to the trial court in connection with the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and the Association.

On May 10, 2010, the District and the Association executed the CNA, which was effective from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017.¹ Two provisions of the contract's Article 7, which addresses "Association Rights," are relevant to this appeal. First, Section 7-2.3 stated that "[t]he president of the [Association], and his/her designee, shall be permitted to devote all of his/her time to the Association business and affairs. The [p]resident shall continue to be granted adequate office and parking facilities." Second, Section 7-2.4 stated that "[t]he president's designee shall carry out appropriate Association business, provided that the aforesaid business shall not disrupt the educational process. The designee shall notify the Superintendent or his/her designee as to where and when he/she is carrying out such Association business during school time."

During the period relevant to this appeal, the two employees designated as releasees pursuant to Sections 7-2.3 and 7-2.4 were the Association's president, Ronald Greco, and its second vice president and Grievance Chair, Tina Thorp. It is undisputed that Greco and Thorp received full-time salaries and benefits during the contract term.

According to a certification submitted by Greco to the trial court, since 1969 or before, the collective negotiations agreements between the District and the Association have provided that the Association's president would be a full-time employee on release time. Greco certified that in 1998, school administrators requested that a second releasee be designated to work full-time on the resolution of labor disputes and other Association duties, and the Association agreed to that request.

Greco described his release time duties to include "facilitating labor-management relations, informally and formally resolving disagreements, promoting effective communications between teachers and administration, improving education quality and personnel skill, promoting harmonious employer/employee relationships, helping set and clarify school polic[i]es with the administration, and working with the staff to understand and comply with all policies." He contended that he and Thorp "keep labor peace in the [school] buildings by facilitating the resolution of disputes that may arise between employees and management." Greco certified that he was regularly asked by District administrative staff to report to them on the results of his efforts to conciliate labor disputes. He stated that he and Thorp also "resolve policy issues" between the District and its employees by "explaining to the staff the purpose of policies and to understand why administration might be contemplating or taking certain action," and by stating the position of the employees on contested issues to school administration.

Greco estimated that he and Thorp spend approximately seventy percent of their working hours attempting to resolve grievances and other disputes between teachers and school administration, and both releasees certified that they spend ninety percent of their school day personally interacting with District personnel in school buildings or Board headquarters. Greco represented that he is "regularly asked by central administrative staff to travel to a school to conciliate a dispute, and then report back on the results...