On August 30, 2022, the City of Trenton’s former business administrator, Adam Cruz, sent an email to PBA Local 11A, Superior Officers Association (SOA) President Jason Woodhead. Cruz was responding to an email Woodhead sent from his non-work-related Gmail account to the mayor of Trenton, which Cruz was copied on, urging an organizational restructuring of the Internal Affairs division within the Trenton Police Department. In his email, Woodhead expressed concern about recent arrests of Trenton police officers for off-duty conduct, suggesting that the current IA structure, operating under the command of the chief of staff within the office of the police director, was inadequate. He proposed restoring IA as a separate bureau with dedicated leadership positions to enhance accountability and public perception.
Cruz responded to Woodhead’s email, stating that Woodhead’s communication to the mayor was “above the chain of command” and “unacceptable.” Cruz asserted that policy decisions for the Department were the sole purview of the police director, who reported to him, and instructed Woodhead to channel any concerns through his supervisor and the director.
The SOA argued that Cruz’s response interfered with Woodhead’s protected right to advocate for SOA members and violated the New Jersey Public Employer-Employee Relations Act. The City countered that Woodhead’s email was not a “lawful execution of his authority as SOA president” because the organizational structure of IA was a matter reserved to the City’s management designee. They also argued that Woodhead’s email referenced non-unit rank and file officers, exceeding his representational authority, and that his communication aimed to create a captain’s position from which he could personally benefit. Furthermore, the City contended that the complaint should be dismissed because Cruz was no longer employed by the City, rendering any relief moot.
The New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission found that Woodhead’s email to the mayor constituted protected activity within the meaning of the Act. They reasoned that the email directly concerned workplace issues involving the SOA, specifically the organizational structure of the IA division and its impact on SOA members. The Commission emphasized that Woodhead’s email contained only the SOA’s recommendation and did not seek negotiations or demand implementation of the proposal.
Addressing the City’s argument that Woodhead’s email exceeded his authority, the Commission acknowledged that reorganizing a department is a managerial prerogative exempt from negotiations. However, they noted that Woodhead’s email merely requested the mayor to “consider” the SOA’s recommendation, refraining from demanding negotiations or implementation.
The Commission then turned to the central issue of whether Cruz’s email constituted an unfair labor practice. The Commission applied the standard that an employer independently violates the Act if its action tends to interfere with an employee’s statutory rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial business justification.
The Commission determined that Cruz’s response, stating Woodhead’s email was “unacceptable” and “above the chain of command,” had a disciplinary tone and tended to interfere with and could have a chilling effect upon Woodhead’s exercise of protected rights. It further found that the City’s exclusive and contractually reserved right to manage its operations did not constitute a legitimate and substantial business justification for Cruz’s response. The City’s interest in maintaining the chain of command, to the extent that Woodhead’s email violated it, did not outweigh Woodhead’s rights under the Act. Finally, the Commission stated that it did not consider the fact that Cruz was no longer employed by the City, as the City conducted its Internal Affairs operations in a manner consistent with Woodhead’s email. It also found the complaint would not be rendered moot, as this conduct exemplified by Cruz’s email was capable of repetition. “As such, we find an order directing the City to cease and desist from such conduct to be a sufficient remedy for the independent violation at issue, which the SOA has established by a preponderance of the evidence in the undisputed record.”
City of Trenton, 51 NJPER ¶ 46 (2025).