Twp. of Edison v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1197
| Docket Number | A-1303-20 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Parties | TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1197, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued February 9, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. C-000111-20.
Raymond G. Heineman argued the cause for appellant (Kroll Heineman, Ptasiewicz & Parsons, LLC, attorneys; Raymond G. Heineman, on the briefs).
Matthew J. Giacobbe argued the cause for respondent (Cleary Giacobbe, Alfieri & Jacobs, LLC, attorneys; Matthew J. Giacobbe, of counsel and on the brief; Jessica V. Henry, on the brief).
Before Judges Sumners and Firko.
Defendant International Association of Firefighters Local 1197 (the Union) appeals from a November 19, 2020 Chancery Division order restraining arbitration of its grievance against plaintiff Township of Edison (the Township). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The following facts are derived from the record. On May 4, 2020, the Township deployed sixteen firefighters to respond to a fire at a three-story apartment building. News reports provided by the Union indicate that eleven apartments were destroyed, rendering thirty-five people homeless. The reports also stated that several other fire departments aided the Township in its efforts to quell the blaze.
The Union and the Township are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA), effective January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. Pertinent to this appeal, Article 8 of the CNA, titled, "Safety and Health," provides:
The Township and the Union agree to cooperate to the fullest extent in the promotion of safety. Two (2) employees representing the Union and two (2) employees representing the Township shall comprise the safety and health committee. The Township representatives shall be the Fire Chief and Deputy Chief or their designees. The committee will meet monthly and discuss safety and health conditions of the fire department. Both the Township and Union shall have the right to call additional meetings of the safety and health committee, which shall be held at a mutually agreed time. All recommendations shall be in writing and copies submitted to the Township and the Union. The two (2) employees representing the Union shall be granted time off to attend these meetings. (Emphasis added).
On May 8, 2020, the safety and health committee held a meeting pursuant to this article. The Union's president argued that the Township's staffing for the May 4, 2020 fire was unsafe. The Township's Fire Chief, Brian Latham, responded by advising that staffing levels are subject to managerial prerogative. Article 46, "Grievance Procedure," defines a grievance as "a claim either by an employee or by the Union that either an individual employee, group of employees or the Union has been harmed by either the interpretation or application of" "the terms and conditions of this agreement and other conditions of employment." With respect to grievance procedures, Article 46(B)(10) provides:
In the event of any unresolved grievances on the interpretation of this agreement, either party may submit to the Public Employees Relations Commission [(PERC)][1] for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear and determine the grievance, and his [or her] decision shall be final and binding on both parties.
On May 11, 2020, the Union filed a grievance pursuant to Article 46 of the CNA alleging: (1) "[t]he Township has refused to staff the [f]ire [d]epartment with safe staffing as required by N[ational] F[ire] P[rotection] A[ssociation] #1710"; (2) "[t]he [T]ownship has reduced the minimum staffing from [twenty-two staff] to [eighteen] per shift, reducing staffing levels below what is needed to maintain safety on a fire ground"; (3) an unsafe number of staff reported to a fire on May 4, 2020; and (4) "[t]he unsafe staffing level was raised at the May 8, 2020 safety committee meeting but the committee [t]ook no action to remedy the unsafe staffing level."
On May 15, 2020, the Township's Fire Chief denied the Union's grievance. Fire Chief Latham first concluded that the issue of staff reduction had already been litigated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey[2]and the Superior Court of New Jersey.[3] He also determined that under precedent established by PERC: (1) "public employers are no[t] required to negotiate about overall staffing levels, or how many firefighters or fire officers will be on duty at a particular time"; (2) an "employer has a managerial prerogative to operate under minimum staffing levels"; and (3) "the quality and quantity of fire protection that a municipality elects to provide is an essential employer determination which is not subject to the mandatory duty to negotiate."
On May 29, 2020, the Union submitted its grievance to arbitration before PERC, requesting as a remedy "that the Township recognize that the staffing levels are unsafe and send the issue back to the contractual [s]afety [c]ommittee to make recommendations." The Union posited the safety and health committee "[t]ook no action to remedy the unsafe staffing level," and "there should have been approximately [forty] firefighters on the scene or backfill fire stations with spare apparatus." On June 18, 2020, PERC appointed an arbitrator.
Thereafter, the Township filed a complaint and an order to show cause (OTSC) in the Chancery Division on July 21, 2020, seeking to restrain arbitration of the Union's grievance. At the OTSC hearing held on August 24, 2020, the Township objected to the arbitration on substantive arbitrability grounds, arguing that under precedent from our Supreme Court, the level of staffing decision is not subject to arbitration. The Union agreed it was "not allowed" to seek a change in staffing levels, but instead sought a "declaratory judgment" from an arbitrator stating the staffing level at the May 4, 2020 fire was unsafe. The Union also sought to "hold the Town[ship] accountable" by going to the "Town Council," "the public," and "those newspapers that reported how wonderful [the May 4, 2020] response was" and indicate the staffing levels were unsafe.
At the conclusion of the parties' arguments, the following colloquy took place:
The judge did not enter a memorializing order that day.
At some point after the hearing, another judge was assigned the matter and entered an order on the OTSC on November 19, 2020, granting the Township's application to restrain the arbitration. The order indicated, "THE COURT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE PLACED ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT ON August 24, 2020." This appeal followed.
The Union now asserts on appeal: (1) its grievance is substantively arbitrable under the arbitration provision of the CNA; (2) the issue of arbitrability is within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC; and (3) the arbitration submission is within the scope of mandatory negotiations and within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Township, on the other hand, contends the CNA neither governs the issue of staffing levels nor subjects the issue to arbitration, and the Union's claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Generally, a trial court's decision pertaining to injunctive relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Stoney v. Maple Shade Twp., 426 N.J.Super. 297, 307 (App. Div. 2012). However, appellate review is de novo where the disputed issue relating to the injunctive relief is a question of law. Ibid. Regarding arbitration agreements, "[w]e exercise plenary review of the trial court's decision regarding the applicability and scope of" the agreement. Jaworski v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, 441 N.J.Super. 464, 472 (App. Div. 2015). Moreover, whether PERC "jurisdiction exists presents a purely legal issue, which [an appellate court] review[s] de novo." See Santiago v. N.Y. & N.J. Port Auth., 429 N.J.Super. 150, 156 (App. Div. 2012) (citation omitted).
We first consider whether the Union's grievance is substantively arbitrable under the CNA. The judiciary's role in determining substantive arbitrability has been explained this way:
That is, it is the court's function to determine whether the CNA involves a matter the parties agreed to arbitrate. In large part, "[t]he scope of arbitrability is generally coextensive with the scope of negotiability." Teaneck Bd. of Educ. v. Teaneck Tchrs. Ass'n., 94 N.J. 9, 14 (1983) (citing Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n., 78 N.J. at 160).
To continue reading
Request your trial