IMO THE ALLEGED IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER SECTION XI, PARAGRAPH A(d) PORT AUTHORITY LABOR RELATIONS INSTRUCTION; IP 97-28

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3134-04T23134-04T2

THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED

IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER SECTION

XI, PARAGRAPH A(d) OF THE PORT

AUTHORITY LABOR RELATIONS

INSTRUCTION; IP 97-28, FINAL

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE PORT

AUTHORITY EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

PANEL; PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW

YORK AND NEW JERSEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

PORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYMENT

RELATIONS PANEL,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 18, 2006 - Decided December 8, 2006

Before Judges Cuff, Fuentes and Baxter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Essex County,

Docket No. L-1897-01.

Donald F. Burke, argued the cause for

appellant, Port Authority of New York

and New Jersey.

Robert E. Anderson, General Counsel,

New Jersey Public Employment Relations

Commission, argued the cause for

respondent, Port Authority Employment

Relations Panel.

Christine Carey Lilore argued the cause for

respondent, Port Authority Police Benevolent

Association.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) appeals from a judgment upholding the Final Decision and Order of a Panel of the Port Authority Employment Relations Board (Panel), in which the Port Authority was found to have unlawfully transferred the unit work of Port Authority police officers to non-unit employees without negotiating with the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA).

The Port Authority appealed the Panel's decision in the Law Division, by filing an action in lieu of prerogative writs. The trial court rejected the Port Authority's challenge to the Panel's decision, adopting the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Panel.

The Port Authority now appeals, raising the following two issues: (1) the trial court, as well as the Panel, ignored a specific provision in the Port Authority Labor Relations Instruction which grants the Port Authority discretion to make decisions regarding its "mission and management", including its "organization, staffing, planning, operating and financial policies;" and (2) the Panel's analysis of the leases in question, forming the basis for its conclusion that the Port Authority improperly transferred unit work, was flawed and, thus, the trial court erred in deferring to the Panel's conclusion.

After carefully reviewing the record, and mindful of our limited scope of review, we reject these arguments and affirm. We are satisfied that the Panel's decision was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record, and was not otherwise arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Panel, as reflected in its memorandum of opinion dated January 11, 2001.

We need not recite the salient facts that formed the basis of this dispute, because they are succinctly stated in the Panel's opinion. Instead, we incorporate them by reference here. Our standard of review in these types of appeals is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). We will not disturb the ultimate determination of an administrative agency unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; unsupported by the evidence; or violative of the legislative policies expressed or implied in the act governing the agency. Ibid. (citing Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997)); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963).

In going about this task, we are not permitted to substitute our own views of the evidence from the findings made by the administrative body. If we find sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the agency's conclusions, we are bound to uphold those findings, even if we believe that we would have reached a different result. Sager v. O.A. Peterson Constr., Co., 182 N.J. 156, 164 (2004).

Applying these standards to the issues raised here, we are satisfied that the Panel's findings and conclusions of law reached therefrom are unassailable. Under the so-called "Fibreboard plus substantial impact test," the Port Authority was legally required to negotiate with the PBA prior to assigning non-unit employees to perform work traditionally done by unit employees alone. City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n, 154 N.J. 555, 575 (1998); see Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 85 S. Ct. 398, 13 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1964).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3134-04T2

December 8, 2006