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