A June 2016 memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the City of Jersey City and IAFF Local 1066 included a compensatory time forfeiture clause (CT Forfeiture Clause) to deter sick leave abuse. The clause, deeply unpopular with the members of the Local, stripped firefighters of their compensatory time after a certain amount of time spent of sick leave. Although union president Joseph Krajnik and Assistant Public Safety Director Jerome Cala privately agreed to modify this clause, the City Council never ratified any changes. However, the clause was not enforced for three years, as the City was under the mistaken belief that Cala had put the CT Forfeiture Clause in a General Order, as he had been instructed to.
Upon discovering that Cala and Krajnik had come to an agreement regarding the non-enforcement of the clause, the City ordered Fire Chief Steven McGill to issue the clause in a General Order. The Union filed an unfair practice charge in response, claiming that the forfeiture clause had been removed by the agreement between the parties. A hearing examiner of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission granted the City’s Motion to Dismiss the unfair labor practice charge, which alleged the City violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act by unilaterally changing terms of employment.
The hearing examiner emphasized that under longstanding labor relations principles, public sector agreements re[1]quire governing body ratification to be enforceable. The June 2016 MOA itself stated it could only be modified by a written instrument “duly executed by the parties,” meaning the City Council and union membership. Since the 2016 agreement made between Krajnik and Cala was never presented to or approved by the City Council, it had no legal effect.
The hearing examiner rejected the Union’s argument that Cala had apparent authority to bind the City, noting that “the doctrine of apparent authority generally is not held to apply to governmental actors.” Even if it did, Cala lacked actual authority to alter a ratified contract without Council approval. Further, the hearing examiner reasoned that allowing such side agreements would destabilize labor relations by undermining the certainty of collectively bargained terms. Because the City’s general orders merely enforced the original MOA’s forfeiture clause – rather than changing the status quo – no unfair practice occurred.
City of Jersey, 51 NJPER ¶ 70 (2025).