P.E.R.C. No. 2014-6, Roselle Park B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of ROSELLE PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2012-075 ROSELLE PARK EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the request of the Roselle Park Board of Education for a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Roselle Park Education Association. The grievance asserts that the Board paid the wrong contractual rate of pay for teachers who taught an additional exam prep period beyond the regular school day. The Commission holds that the dispute over proper compensation for additional duties performed is mandatorily negotiable. ¶

This synopsis is not part of the Commission decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commission. ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of ROSELLE PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2012-075 ROSELLE PARK EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C., attorneys (Anthony P. Sciarrillo, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Oxfeld Cohen, P.C., attorneys (Gail Oxfeld Kanef, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On June 13, 2012, the Roselle Park Board of Education filed a scope of negotiations petition. The Board seeks a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Roselle Park Education Association. The grievance asserts that the Board violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA) when teachers who taught an additional period beyond the regular school day were compensated at an incorrect rate. We deny the Board’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration. The Board has filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of Superintendent Patrick Spagnoletti. The Association has filed a brief. These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents a negotiations unit of teachers and other non-supervisory Board employees. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA effective from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Article X of the CNA is entitled “Teaching Hours and Teaching Load” . Section F.1. of Article X provides: ¶

Teachers in grades 6-12 who volunteer to teach an additional period shall be paid an additional 1/7 of their salary. This shall be paid as pensionable salary if permitted by the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF). ¶

Section P. of Article X provides the following: ¶

Teachers electing to instruct beyond the scheduled work day will be compensated at a rate of: ¶

2009-2012 $34.15 ¶

Longevity - 2009-2012 $37.96 per class period of not less than thirty (30) minutes or more than forty-five (45) minutes. In the WISE program longevity shall only apply after four (4) years of instruction in the WISE program. ¶

On January 31, 2012, Sarah Costa, the Roselle Park High School Principal, sent a letter to parents of at-risk students regarding the Board’s offering of before and after school classes providing extra help in preparation for the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) exam. Principal Costa notified the teaching staff that they would be teaching the extra period, and the Association met with Principal Costa and Superintendent Spagnoletti to discuss compensation for the additional classes. ¶

On March 5, 2012, the Association filed a grievance asserting that the Board violated the CNA by underpaying the Language Arts and Math teachers who volunteered to teach an additional HSPA exam prep period for twenty days. The grievance alleges, in pertinent part: ¶

They are currently being compensated at a rate of $34.15 as per the WISE program. The WISE program no longer exists and was never a program at the high school. The Association contends that it is an additional teaching assignment and should be paid according to contractual provision X. F.1. and/or past practice, one-seventh of their salary. ¶

...Teachers continue to teach this class as an additional class, yet continue to be compensated under the WISE rate, not at the contracted one-seventh of their salary... ¶

For a remedy, the Association seeks for the teachers to be paid at the rate set forth in Article X, section F.1. of the CNA, retroactive to the date of assignment. ¶

By letter of March 7, 2012, Principal Costa denied the grievance, stating, in pertinent part: ¶

Procedurally, the grievance is improper. Substantively, it is my position that the grievance is based on an improper interpretation of the Agreement. ¶

On April 17, the Board held a hearing and denied the grievance. On May 10, the Association demanded binding arbitration. This petition ensued. ¶

The Board asserts that the grievance interferes with its managerial prerogative to determine staffing levels for instruction beyond the scheduled work day. It states that it is compensating teachers for the additional period in compliance with Article X, section P. of the CNA. The Board concedes that the issue of compensation for the additional period is mandatorily negotiable, but argues that the CNA is clear about the level of compensation for such work. ¶

The Association asserts that the grievance concerns only the issue of the appropriate amount of additional compensation for additional work, and not the assignment of staff to work additional hours. It argues that this dispute is appropriate for an arbitrator because it concerns the contract interpretation issue of which CNA clause determines the correct compensation rates for additional HSPA exam prep periods. It argues that the Article X sections cited by the parties concern compensation, not scheduling, and are thus negotiable and arbitrable. ¶

Our jurisdiction is narrow. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978), states: ¶

The Commission is addressing the abstract issue: is the subject matter in dispute within the scope of collective negotiations. Whether that subject is within the arbitration clause of the agreement, whether the facts are as alleged by the grievant, whether the contract provides a defense for the employer's alleged action, or even whether there is a valid arbitration clause in the agreement or any other question which might be raised is not to be determined by the Commission in a scope proceeding. Those are questions appropriate for determination by an arbitrator and/or the courts. ¶

Thus, we do not consider the merits of the grievance or any contractual defenses the employer may have. ¶

Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), articulates the standards for determining whether a subject is mandatorily negotiable: ¶

[A] subject is negotiable between public employers and employees when (1) the item intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To decide whether a negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy, it is necessary to balance the interests of the public employees and the public employer. When the dominant concern is the government’s managerial prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees’ working conditions. ¶

[Id. at 404-405]. ¶

Compensation is the prime example of a subject which intimately and directly affects employee work and welfare. Our Supreme Court has consistently held that compensation is mandatorily negotiable. See, e.g., Englewood Bd. of Ed. v. Englewood Ed. Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 6-7 (1973); Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg. Bd. of Ed. v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg. Ed. Ass'n, 81 N.J. 582, 591 (1980); and Hunterdon Cty. Freeholder Bd., 116 N.J. 322, 331-332 (1989). We have therefore held mandatorily negotiable and legally arbitrable claims that employees did not receive the proper contractual compensation for the duties they were assigned to perform. See, e.g., City of Garfield, P.E.R.C. No. 94-11, 19 NJPER 442 (¶24205 1993); Town of West New York, P.E.R.C. No. 92-38, 17 NJPER 476 (¶22231 1991), aff'd NJPER Supp.2d 321 (¶243 App. Div. 1993); and Carteret Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-30, 5 NJPER 397 (¶10205 1979), aff'd NJPER Supp.2d 87 (¶69 App. Div. 1980). We do so here as well. The Board does not dispute that compensation for additional teaching assignments is within the scope of negotiations; it disputes which contractual rate of pay applies for teaching HSPA exam prep periods. This argument goes to the merits of the grievance. Accordingly, the Association may legally arbitrate its claim that teachers should have been compensated according to Article X.F. and not Article X.P. for these additional periods. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request of the Roselle Park Board of Education for a restraint of binding arbitration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hatfield, Commissioners Bonanni, Eskilson, Jones, Voos and Wall voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Boudreau was not present. ¶

ISSUED: August 8, 2013 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶