The Newark Police Superior Officers’ Association (SOA) alleged that the City of Newark violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act by refusing to negotiate in good faith for a successor agreement.
The most recent agreement between the City and SOA spanned from 2013 to 2015 and was extended with modifications through the end of 2017. The parties operated under a memorandum of agreement until a new MOA was ratified effective retroactively from 2018 through 2023. On September 20, 2023, the SOA sent an email to the City’s Business Administrator requesting to negotiate a successor agreement. The City responded on September 21 that they also wished to begin negotiations. The SOA sent follow-up emails on September 27 and November 1, but the City did not respond to these communications.
Following the filing of the unfair practice charge, the City agreed to an exploratory conference on January 18, 2024. The SOA confirmed the date but was told by the Business Administrator’s office that the meeting was not on the calendar and needed to be rescheduled. On February 22, the parties finally met to negotiate, but the City came to the table without any proposals. The meeting lasted only three to five minutes. The parties then exchanged proposals on March 7 and April 2 without reaching an agreement. On April 25, the parties met, and the Mayor instructed the Business Administrator to schedule a negotiation meeting. Subsequently, the SOA requested to meet numerous times via email, but the City did not respond. On August 26, the City filed for interest arbitration. The interest arbitration petition was held in abeyance while the parties pursued special mediation.
The SOA filed its unfair practice charge on September 19, 2024, claiming that the City had violated its duty to negotiate in good faith. The City filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and the matter was referred to the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission.
The Commission granted the SOA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the City’s cross-motion, finding that the City had violated its duty to bargain in good faith.
The Commission noted that while neither party strictly complied with the regulations, the City’s conduct was “more concerning” because it “did not respond to follow-up attempts by the SOA to schedule negotiations sessions and/or was not prepared for negotiations sessions that were scheduled.” The Commission found that the “City’s actions obstructed the negotiations process, which is entered into with the goal of avoiding interest arbitration.”
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(a)(1) requires that negotiations between a public fire or police department and an exclusive representative concerning the terms and conditions of employment “shall begin at least 120 days prior to the day on which their collective negotiation agreement is to expire.” The statute also requires the parties to meet at least three times during that 120-day period.
The Commission observed that the SOA’s request to negotiate was sent 102 days before the agreement’s expiration and that the SOA had failed to notify the City or the Commission of its intention to negotiate no later than 15 days prior to the commencement of negotiations as required by state law. The Commission stated that because of this, it declined to award monetary damages to the SOA.
Despite these deficiencies, the Commission ultimately found that the City violated its bargaining obligation. “While it accepted the SOA’s initial request to negotiate, it did not respond to follow-up attempts by the SOA to schedule negotiations sessions and/or was not prepared for negotiations sessions that were scheduled. The City’s actions obstructed the negotiations process, which is entered into with the goal of avoiding interest arbitration. Nonetheless, after hindering negotiations, the City went ahead and filed for interest arbitration.”
City of Newark, 51 NJPER ¶ 42 (2024).