The Director of Unfair Practices for the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission dismissed an unfair practice charge against the City of Camden, holding that the City’s outside labor counsel lacked the authority to bind the municipality to a settlement agreement in the disciplinary matter of Fire Captain Jon Martin.
The International Association of Firefighters Local 2578 filed the unfair practice charge on January 17, 2025, alleging that the City violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1), (5), and (6). The charge stemmed from settlement discussions regarding a disciplinary arbitration scheduled for June 6, 2024. On or about May 22, 2024, counsel for the parties discussed settlement. Following an exchange of draft language on or about June 5, 2024, the City’s outside labor counsel advised the Association that his “client would need to sign off on the agreement.” The parties then canceled the arbitration and split the late cancellation fee. On or about June 12, 2024, Martin and the Association signed the draft. In November 2024, upon follow-up, counsel informed the Association the City had rejected the draft. The Association filed charges, asserting that the City had repudiated the settlement agreement, and a compliant was issued.
The PERC Director found the complaint issuance standard unmet. Proceeding with the understanding that “the doctrine of apparent authority [generally] is not held to apply to governmental actors,” he concluded that the outside counsel was a governmental actor without actual authority to settle. The explicit conditional statement to the Association negated any claim of binding authority.
“Even assuming the apparent authority doctrine did apply in this matter, the City did not represent to [the Association] that outside labor counsel had authority to bind the City to the settlement agreement. As discussed above, counsel for the City advised that his client would need to sign the agreement. Counsel for the City never indicated that the City had accepted the draft settlement agreement. The draft agreement was never approved by any City official as it was never signed by the City.”
Further, the Director rejected the Association’s reliance on Black Horse Pike Regional School District. The Association had argued that, because no oral or written qualifying statements were made by counsel for the City, as in Black Horse, the agreement was binding on the City.
“In this matter, the parties were not in collective negotiations, but rather discussing a disciplinary matter. Therefore, a qualifying statement was not required. However, even if [a] qualifying statement was required, counsel for the City did advise [the Association] that his client would need to sign the agreement, thereby advising [the Association] that he did not have authority to settle the matter.”
The Director further held that, absent a binding agreement, the Association’s claim of repudiation under 5.4a(5) failed, as there was no established agreement to repudiate. The derivative claim under 5.4a(1) likewise could not be sustained. Consequently, the City’s refusal to sign did not constitute a refusal to reduce a negotiated agreement to writing under 5.4a(6).
City of Camden, 52 NJPER ¶ 30 (D.U.P. 2025).