Township of Middletown v. Middletown PBA Local 124

SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).

Township of Middletown v. Middletown PBA Local 124 (A-57-99)
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the Per Curiam opinion below.)
 
Argued September 11, 2000 -- Decided October 11, 2000

PER CURIAM

The issue in this case deals with Middletown Township's change in its practice regarding pay scale for newly hired experienced police officers and whether that change constituted an unfair labor practice, subjecting a claim challenging the change to the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC).

Middletown Township had a long-standing practice of hiring experienced police officers at an advanced step on its Police Pay Scale. Customarily, such new officers were placed on Step Three at a salary of $41,812. However, when Anthony Gonzalez was hired, he was placed on Step Two at a salary of $34,272, and was not advanced to the next step for six months. Middletown PBA Local 124 filed an unfair practice charge against the Township in Gonzalez's behalf, alleging a violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a). After a hearing officer recommended dismissal of the complaint, the PERC held that the Township had violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a) by unilaterally changing its practice concerning initial salary level for trained and experienced police officers. PERC ordered that the practice be restored and applied to Gonzalez with back pay. PERC did not hold that Local 124 had a contractual right to have the practice maintained. Rather, it held that if the Township wished to make such a change, it was obligated to negotiate it with the Local in good faith.

The Township appealed, contending that PERC lacked jurisdiction because the claim was not an unfair practice. On the merits, the Township maintained that Local 124 presented no claim founded in law and fact. The Township viewed the claim as a garden variety contract dispute, and not an unfair labor practice. Although it admitted that the starting salary of new experienced police officers was not part of the collective bargaining negotiations leading to the contract, it maintained that it would have been willing to negotiate that issue.

In a written opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed PERC's order, concluding that the issue was properly considered as an unfair practice charge and that PERC thus had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In reaching its decision, the panel noted that Local 124 had not charged a breach of contract, but rather had charged a change in policy or past practice. Because that condition of employment was not set by contract, the Local maintained that the statute required good faith negotiations to place the particular condition in the contract. The panel noted that the Local did not claim that the Township was bound by the contract to initially place Gonzalez at Step Three, but rather that it was statutorily required to negotiate before changing its past practice.

On the merits of the claim, the Appellate Division found that PERC's decision, which directed negotiations to make starting salary a condition of the contract to address the Township's argument regarding a change in economic conditions, was reasonable and neither arbitrary nor capricious. Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of PERC in all respects.

The Court granted the Township's petition for certification.

HELD: The decision of the Appellate Division below is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the panel's Per Curiam opinion. Middletown Township's unilateral change in its long-standing practice regarding starting salary levels for newly-hired experienced police officers was properly considered by the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission as an unfair labor practice; and PERC's decision on the merits of the claim was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO and ZAZZALI join in this opinion. JUSTICE LAVECCHIA would have dismissed the petition for certification as improvidently granted.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A- 57 September Term 1999

TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN,

Respondent-Appellant,

v.

MIDDLETOWN PBA LOCAL 124,

Charging Party- Respondent.

Argued September 11, 2000 -- Decided October 11, 2000

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at N.J. Super. (1999).
Bernard M. Reilly argued the cause for appellant (Dowd & Reilly, attorneys).

Fred M. Klatsky argued the cause for respondent (Klatsky & Klatsky, attorneys; Michael A. Bukosky, on the brief).

Robert E. Anderson, General Counsel, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission.

PER CURIAM

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Per Curiam opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___ (1999).
 
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO and ZAZZALI join in this opinion. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA would have dismissed the petition for certification as improvidently granted.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

NO. A-57

SEPTEMBER TERM 1999
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court

TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN,

Respondent-Appellant,

v.

MIDDLETOWN PBA LOCAL 124,

Charging Party-Respondent.

DECIDED October 11, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz

PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST AFFIRM DISMISS AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ X JUSTICE O'HERN X JUSTICE STEIN X JUSTICE COLEMAN X JUSTICE LONG X JUSTICE VERNIERO X JUSTICE LaVECCHIA ------- X TOTALS 6 1

Converted by Andrew Scriven