P.E.R.C. No. 2025-1, Essex Cty

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF ESSEX, Appellant, -and- Docket No. IA-2024-008 IA-2024-009 PBA, LOCAL 183 - RANK & FILE and CONSOLIDATED PBA, LOCAL 183A - SUPERIOR OFFICERS, Respondents. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

In consolidated appeals filed by the County of Essex, the Commission vacates and remands two interest arbitration awards covering rank-and-file and superior officers employed by the County’s Sheriff’s Department, represented by PBA Locals 183 and 183A. Issued in June of 2024, the awards covered only calendar years 2018 and 2019, setting the terms for each Local of collective negotiations agreements (CNAs) to succeed those that expired on December 31, 2017. The awards provided wage increases in each year of 0% for Local 183, and 2% (retroactively) for Local 183A. Because the prior CNAs expired on December 31, 2017, without final settlements having been reached, the Commission finds: (1) the awards remain subject to the statutory 2% cap on aggregate increases in base salary items, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7 and -16.9, despite the cap law’s expiration after 2017, and notwithstanding that no party petitioned for interest arbitration until more than six years after the prior CNAs expired; (2) the Local 183 award contains contradictory statements, concluding both that “the 2% Hard Cap applies” and that “because of step movement” the aggregate increase in salary exceeds 2% each year; and (3) the Local 183A award lacks calculations showing how step movement would not result in an award that exceeds the 2% cap. The Commission remands to the arbitrator for re-calculation and issuance of new awards showing the methodology by which he determines that each award will comply with requirements of the cap law. The Commission otherwise affirms the arbitrator’s determinations regarding unit composition in the Local 183A award. ¶

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 COUNTY OF ESSEX, Appellant, -and- Docket No. IA-2024-008 IA-2024-009 PBA, LOCAL 183 - RANK & FILE and CONSOLIDATED PBA, LOCAL 183A - SUPERIOR OFFICERS, Respondents. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Appellant, Genova Burns LLC, attorneys (Angelo J. Genova and Joseph M. Hannon, of counsel and on the briefs; Sydney M. Schubert, on the briefs) ¶

For the Respondents, Nicholas J. Palma, Esq., Valerie Palma DeLuisi, Esq. & Associates, attorneys (Valerie Palma DeLuisi, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On July 8, 2024, the County of Essex (County) appealed interest arbitration awards covering two negotiations units of officers employed by the County’s Sheriff’s Department who are represented by the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA), Local 183 (Dkt No. IA-2024-008) and Local 183A (Dkt No. IA-2024- 009)1/. Local 183 is the majority representative of rank-and- file officers. Local 183A is the majority representative of superior officers holding the ranks of Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain. The County and each Local are parties to respective collective negotiations agreements (CNAs), as modified by a series of memorandums of agreements (MOAs), effective from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. ¶

On the 20th (Local 183A) and 21st (Local 183) of February 2024, each Local separately filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16(e)(1), concerning a successor CNA. On March 19, an interest arbitrator was appointed for Local 183’s Petition. On March 26, the same arbitrator was appointed for Local 183A’s Petition. Because “the issues underlying both petitions are intertwined,” the parties consolidated the matters for a single hearing, with the understanding that the arbitrator would issue separate awards for each Local. (Awards at 2.) ¶

On April 10, 2024, the arbitrator conducted a mediation session with the parties, at which it was determined that the impasse should proceed to interest arbitration. (Awards at 2.) The parties exchanged final offers on April 26. The arbitrator conducted hearings on May 6 and May 21. (Id.) The parties submitted post-hearing briefs on June 5, 2024, upon which the record was closed. (Id. at 3.) On June 22 (Local 183A) and June 23 (Local 183), 2024, the arbitrator separately issued 27-page (Local 183) and 35-page (Local 183A) conventional awards, setting the terms of a two-year successor CNA for each respective Local, each effective January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. The Local 183 Award provides for a wage increase of 0% each calendar year. The Local 183A Award provides for a retroactive wage increase of 2% each calendar year. These appeals ensued, which we consolidate herein. The County also moved to stay implementation of the Awards during the pendency of its appeals2/ and requested oral argument.3/ ¶

The County filed briefs, exhibits, and the transcripts of the arbitration hearing. The Locals filed briefs in opposition and joint exhibits. ¶

Central to the County’s appeals is the statutory “2% cap” (also described as the “Hard Cap” ) on aggregate increases in base salary items over the twelve months preceding an interest arbitration award, and in each subsequent year of the agreement awarded, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7. The 2% cap applies only to negotiated agreements expiring between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017, inclusive, after which it “shall become inoperative,” except as to CNAs that expired on or before December 31, 2017 with no final settlement having been reached. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.9. The County asserts the 2% cap applies in both matters because both CNAs expired on December 31, 2017, without a final settlement on successor agreements. ¶

Arguments of the Parties ¶

IA-2024-008 (Local 183 Award) ¶

The County contends the Local 183 Award does not comply with the 2% cap because it does not account for already-paid incremental increases in base salary resulting from annual step movement on the existing salary guide by members of the unit (as it existed on December 31, 2017) after December 31, 2017. ¶

Local 183 members have received those increments since the CNA expired, the County avers, and both the arbitrator and Local 183 “acknowledged the 2% cap was exceeded for the first two years of the Award.” (County’s Br. At 4.) The County faults the Award’s statement that “the only additional costs would be the natural progression arising from the step movements” (Local 183 Award at 25), for providing no “analysis of what those costs are, or whether they are within the 2% arbitration salary cap.” (County’s Br. At 4.) ¶

The County further contends, based on the arbitrator’s statement that “because of step movement the aggregate increase in salary exceeds 2% for both 2018 and 2019” (Local 183 Award at 24),4/ he should have awarded an 8-year contract as per the County’s final offer. (County’s Br. at 31.) For example, the County contends the unit’s total base salary for 2017 was $27,865,706.60, and thus that under the 2% cap, the total increase to base salary could not exceed $557,314.13 in 2018, or $568,460.42 in 2019. (County’s Br. at 30.) Already-paid step increments totaled $722,137.90 in 2018, and $1,020,403.36 in 2019. This is $616,766.71 above what could be awarded to the Local 183 unit in a 2-year award that is subject to the 2% cap, the County contends.5/ (County’s Br. at 31.) Accounting for the already-paid increments would have required the arbitrator to extend the Award beyond two years until he could reconcile the 2% cap. (Id.) Thus, the arbitrator had no discretion to issue a two-year award, and by doing so he exceeded his authority, the County argues. ¶

The County further contends that because the 2% cap law has not expired for these parties, the arbitrator committed a mistake of law by stating, “Since the 2% Hard Cap statute has expired, the County has not persuaded me that my Award must extend through 2025 in order to comply with the statute.” (Local 183 Award at 32.) By not doing a proper cost out in compliance with the Interest Arbitration Reform Act, the County contends the arbitrator also failed to give due weight to the public interest and the financial impact of the Award on the governing body. ¶

In opposition, Local 183 argues no binding precedent requires an interest arbitrator to award a contract term of a particular length; that duration is an arbitrable issue particularly when parties disagree on a term; that the Award’s 2- year term was consistent with the union’s final offer, and also consistent with a pattern of two-year settlements that the County reached with 22 other County bargaining units in exchange for those units accepting the County’s decision to change employee health insurance plans in 20176/. ¶

Local 183 contends the arbitrator appropriately considered the wages and other elements of those two-year settlements as a significant factor in fashioning his Award (noting the other unions received raises as part of those settlements, unlike the Local 183 Award), and in concluding that awarding a term of two years would allow the parties here to negotiate a new agreement, if they chose, consistent with the provisions of those other settlements. (Local 183 Br. at 9.) Local 183 also argues that an 8-year contract, as urged by the County, will keep the union unfairly subjected to the statutory scheme of the 2% cap well beyond its expiration date. ¶

Local 183 further argues that the Award complies with the 2% cap since it awarded 0% wage increases, and because step increments paid in 2018 and 2019 were due to prior contracts and MOAs between the parties, which remained in effect until the current Award. ¶

Local 183 further argues that the arbitrator gave due weight to the public interest and financial impact, and that the County cherry-picked which factors they would like reconsidered while ignoring the legal analysis of the Award as a whole. ¶

Local 183 also asserts the County did not confirm or authenticate through testimony its proffered cost-out for 2020- 2024 at the hearing before the arbitrator. ¶

IA-2024-009 (Local 183A Award) ¶

In its appeal of the Local 183A Award the County argues, as above, that the arbitrator: abdicated his statutory authority by failing to apply the 2% cap; did not perform total net economic changes; failed to provide a cost out of the Award; and did not give due weight to the public interest and the Award’s financial impact on the employer. ¶

Specific to the 2% cap issue and the Local 183A Award, the County contends: the arbitrator incorrectly determined the roster for 2017 by not appropriately accounting for the unit as it existed on December 31, 2017, and not considering all base salary items for 2017; and the arbitrator made a mistake of fact and law by not counting towards the 2017 base salary calculation the salaries of five superior officers promoted at the end of 2017, whose resultant salary increases were paid in 2018 but were retroactive to their 2017 promotion date. ¶

The County also contends that the Local 183A Award’s two- year term is not supported by substantial credible evidence and does not comply with the 2% cap because, like IA-2024-008, it does not account for already-paid step increments received by Local 183A unit members in 2018, 2019, and beyond. The County contends that the total base salary for Local 183A in 2017 was $5,878,388.69, and thus that under the 2% cap, the total increase to base salary could not exceed $114,567.78 in 2018, or $119,919.13 in 2019. (County’s Br. at 30.) Already-paid step increments totaled $194,648.64 in 2018, and $59,989.74 in 2019, for a total of $254,638.38. This is $17,149.41 above what could be awarded to the Local 183A unit in a 2-year award that is subject to the 2% cap, the County contends. (Id.) The County maintains that the arbitrator should have awarded a 3-year term for Local 183A, as the 2% cap for this unit cannot be satisfied until 2020. (Id., at 31.) ¶

In opposition, regarding the issue of the five promotions and their effect on base salary, Local 183A contends the arbitrator considered the cap law’s focus on the amount expended on base salary “in the twelve months immediately preceding” the CNA’s expiration, and weighed the parties’ factual and legal arguments, testimony and evidence. Local 183A contends the arbitrator made no mistake of fact or law in finding: “[T]he issue is how much was expended in 2017. Because those five officers never actually received an increase in salary until 2018, I conclude that their salary should be excluded from the base salary calculation.” (N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7(b); Local 183A Br. at 13; Award at 32.) ¶

Local 183A contends the arbitrator’s calculations on pages 32-33 of the Award refute the County’s claim that the arbitrator did not provide a cost-out for his Award. (Local 183A Br. at 14.) Local 183A further contends that the 2-year term of the Award was based on substantial credible evidence, including the arbitrator’s detailed consideration and discussion of the County’s pattern of two-year settlements with 22 other units over the health benefit issue. Local 183A also argues that the arbitrator correctly determined the Award was in the public interest and would not result in higher taxes or borrowing, based on the testimony of the union’s expert and the County’s Director of Administration and Finance Treasurer. ¶

Standard of Review ¶

Our standard for reviewing interest arbitration awards is well established. We will not vacate an award unless the appellant demonstrates that: (1) the arbitrator failed to give “due weight” to the nine 16(g) factors judged relevant to the resolution of the specific dispute; (2) the arbitrator violated the standards in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 and -9; or (3) the award is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Teaneck Tp. v. Teaneck FMBA, Local No. 42, 353 N.J. Super. 298, 299 (App. Div. 2002), aff’d o.b., 177 N.J. 560 (2003), citing Cherry Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 97-119, 23 NJPER 287 (¶28131 1997). Because the Legislature entrusted arbitrators with weighing the evidence, we will not disturb an arbitrator’s exercise of discretion unless an appellant demonstrates that the arbitrator did not adhere to these standards. Teaneck, 353 N.J. Super. at 308-309; Cherry Hill. ¶

Arriving at an economic award is not a precise mathematical process. The treatment of the parties’ proposals involves judgment and discretion and an arbitrator will rarely be able to demonstrate that an award is the only “correct” one. See Lodi Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 99-28, 24 NJPER 466 (¶29214 1998). Some of the evidence may be conflicting and an arbitrator’s award is not necessarily flawed because some pieces of evidence, standing alone, might point to a different result. Lodi. Therefore, within the parameters of our review standard, we will defer to the arbitrator’s judgment, discretion and labor relations expertise. City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 99-97, 26 NJPER 242 (¶30103 1999). ¶

However, within this framework, an arbitrator must provide a reasoned explanation for an award and state what statutory factors he or she considered most important in arriving at the award, and explain why they were given significant weight and how other evidence or factors were weighed and considered. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g; N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9; Union County, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-33, 28 NJPER 459 (¶33169 2002). ¶

When reviewing interest arbitration awards that are subject to the 2% cap, we apply the following standard: ¶

[W]e must determine whether the arbitrator established that the award will not increase base salary by more than 2% per contract year . . . in the aggregate for [the duration of the] . . . contract award. In order for us to make that determination, the arbitrator must state what the total base salary was for the last year of the expired contract and show the methodology as to how base salary was calculated. We understand that the parties may dispute the actual base salary amount and the arbitrator must make the determination and explain what was included based on the evidence submitted by the parties. Next, the arbitrator must calculate the costs of the award to establish that the award will not increase the employer’s base salary costs in excess of [2% per contract year] . . . in the aggregate. The statutory definition of base salary includes the costs of the salary increments of unit members as they move through the steps of the salary guide. Accordingly, the arbitrator must review the scattergram of the employees’ placement on the guide to determine the incremental costs in addition to the across- the-board raises awarded. The arbitrator must then determine the costs of any other economic benefit to the employees that was included in base salary, but at a minimum this calculation must include a determination of the employer’s cost of longevity. Once these calculations are made, the arbitrator must make a final calculation that the total economic award does not increase the employer’s costs for base salary by more than 2% per contract year . . . in the aggregate. ¶

[New Milford Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-53, 38 NJPER 340, 344 (¶116 2012).] ¶

Analysis ¶

It is unfortunate that the parties proceeded to interest arbitration more than six years after their prior CNAs expired. All parties could have filed for interest arbitration upon expiration of the prior CNA on December 31, 2017. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-15(b)(2). All parties also had access to the Commission’s mediation services. Unfortunately, they did not avail themselves of these services and we are faced with applying a labor relations statute that expired in 2017 retroactively to awards issued in 2024. ¶

We find both Awards are subject to the 2% cap set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-19.7(b), which states: ¶

An arbitrator shall not render any award pursuant to section 3 of P.L.1977, c.85 (C.34:13A-16) which, in the first year of the collective negotiation agreement awarded by the arbitrator, increases base salary items by more than 2.0 percent of the aggregate amount expended by the public employer on base salary items for the members of the affected employee organization in the twelve months immediately preceding the expiration of the collective negotiation agreement subject to arbitration. In each subsequent year of the agreement awarded by the arbitrator, base salary items shall not be increased by more than 2.0 percent of the aggregate amount expended by the public employer on base salary items for the members of the affected employee organization in the immediately preceding year of the agreement awarded by the arbitrator. ¶

The parties may agree, or the arbitrator may decide, to distribute the aggregate monetary value of the award over the term of the collective negotiation agreement in unequal annual percentage increases, which shall not be greater than the compounded value of a 2.0 percent increase per year over the corresponding length of the collective negotiation agreement. An award of an arbitrator shall not include base salary items and non-salary economic issues which were not included in the prior collective negotiations agreement. ¶

The 2% cap law defines “base salary” as follows: ¶

“Base salary” means the salary provided pursuant to a salary guide or table and any amount provided pursuant to a salary increment, including any amount provided for longevity or length of service. It also shall include any other item agreed to by the parties, or any other item that was included in the base salary as understood by the parties in the prior contract. Base salary shall not include non-salary economic issues, pension and health and medical insurance costs. ¶

[N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6.7(a) (emphases added).] ¶

The corresponding PERC regulation states: ¶

Where applicable, the arbitrator’s economic award must comply with the two percent cap on average annual increases to base salary items pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7, as amended by P.L. 2014, c. 11. In all awards, whether or not subject to the two percent cap, the arbitrator’s decision shall set forth the costs of all “base salary” items for each year of the award, including the salary provided pursuant to a salary guide or table, any amount provided pursuant to a salary increment, any amount provided for longevity or length of service, and any other item agreed to by the parties or that was included as a base salary item in the prior award or as understood by the parties in the prior contract. These cost-out figures for the awarded base salary items are necessary in order for the arbitrator to determine, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.d, whether the total net annual economic changes for each year of the award are reasonable under the statutory criteria. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9(c).] ¶

Because the CNAs of both Local 183 and Local 183A expired on December 31, 2017, without final settlements having been reached, the 2% cap still applies here pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.9, which states, in pertinent part: ¶

after December 31, 2017, the provisions of section 2 of P.L.2010, c.105 (C.34:13A-16.7) shall become inoperative for all parties except those whose collective negotiations agreements expired prior to or on December 31, 2017 but for whom a final settlement has not been reached. ¶

Regarding the 2% cap as it applies to the Local 183 Award, the arbitrator held: ¶

I am unpersuaded by the County’s arguments that because of step movement, I am required to award an eight-year term with no increase in salary for up to seven years, even though the statutory requirements governing the 2% Hard Cap have now expired. I would also note that eight-year terms for any collective negotiations agreements are exceptional. I recognize that because of step movement the aggregate increase in salary exceeds 2% for both 2018 and 2019. Since the 2% Hard Cap statute has expired, the County has not persuaded me that my Award must extend through 2025 in order to comply with the statute. I conclude that Local 183’s position acknowledging that its members at the top step cannot receive a raise for two years is reasonable. It allows the County and the Union to return to a pattern of negotiations consistent with the over twenty bargaining units that also negotiate with the County. ¶

The County is unable to cite to any authority which eliminates my discretion regarding the term of the Contract Therefore, I conclude that the 2% Hard Cap applies, and I award a two-year CNA whose term commences January 1, 2018 and expires December 31, 2019, with no increase in wages for either year of the Contract. ¶

I recognize that I have an obligation to cost out my award, As the Union argued, because there will be no wage increase during the life of the agreement, there is no cost to the County or its taxpayers based on this Award. The only additional costs would be the natural progression arising from the step movement. ¶

[(IA-2024-008, at 24-25 (emphases added).)] ¶

We agree with the arbitrator that the requirements of the 2% cap law do not “eliminate” interest arbitrators’ discretion regarding the term of an award. However, an arbitrator must still show the methodology by which he determines that an award that is subject to the 2% cap will not increase base salary by more than 2% per contract year in the aggregate for the duration of the contract award, whatever its length. New Milford, supra. We note that there is no single correct methodology for costing out an award once the arbitrator has satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements discussed above. In re State, 443 N.J. Super. 380, 390 (App. Div. 2016), certif. den., 225 N.J. 221 (2016) ( “except for failure to comply with the 2% salary cap provision, we will not set aside an interest arbitration award for failure to apply a specific methodology.” ) ¶

The above-quoted passage of the Local 183 Award contains apparently contradictory statements that are not explained or reconciled elsewhere in the Award: “I conclude that the 2% Hard Cap applies,” and “I recognize that because of step movement the aggregate increase in salary exceeds 2% for both 2018 and 2019.” The Award also contains no calculations demonstrating that, even with no wage increase, the Award complies with the 2% cap despite the “additional costs . . . arising from the step movement.” ¶

In the 183A Award, the arbitrator acknowledged the County’s position that “the members of the Local 183A bargaining unit continued to receive step increases in the period since the CNA expired, and since those step increases exceed the 2% Hard Cap through 2020, . . . the CNA’s duration must be in excess of two years.” (Local 183A Award at 22-23.) Yet the cost calculations performed by the arbitrator in determining the Award do not address this concern: ¶

The Union has demonstrated that the actual amount spent on base salary for the year ending December 31, 2017 was $5,879,060.05. Based on this figure, under the 2% Hard Cap in 2018 there was $117,581.20 to be spent, and in 2019 there was $119,952.82 available to be spent or a total of $237,514.20 for both years. The annualized cost of the salary in 2017 was $5,608,904.23. For 2018, I am awarding a 2% increase which equals $112,178.08 retroactive to the first pay period after January 1, 2019. Together this increase equals $226,599.72 or an aggregate wage increase of 3.85% for the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019, which is within the 2% Hard Cap. ¶

[(Local 183A Award at 32-33.] ¶

Absent from the above-quoted passage are calculations showing how, when aggregated with the 2% wage increase in each year of the Award, step movement would not result in an Award that exceeds the 2% cap, as the County claims. In New Milford, supra, we confirmed the arbitrator’s discretion to determine the base salary where the parties are not in agreement. Here, the arbitrator excluded the five officers who were promoted in December 2017 finding their salaries were not paid until 2018. We find that determination is reasonable, is supported by substantial credible evidence, and is consistent with N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7(b) and with relevant precedent. New Milford; City of Atlantic City, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-82, 39 NJPER 505 (¶161 2013). ¶

For both Awards, the arbitrator discussed the ongoing unfair practice cases between the parties regarding the employer’s unilateral moving of the units from a private health insurer to the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP). The arbitrator concluded that this was an unfair practice based on a prior decision we issued with the same parties. We clarify that we found an unfair practice as to the other units in the consolidated cases but remanded the charges as to Locals 183 and 183A for a hearing due to material issues of fact in dispute. P.E.R.C. No. 2023-60, 50 NJPER 43 (¶15 2023). A final decision has not issued in those matters. Notwithstanding, we find the arbitrator’s analysis in conformance with our review standard. We add that N.J.S.A. 34:13A-18 prohibits an arbitrator from issuing “any finding, opinion or order regarding the issue of whether or not a public employer shall remain as a participant in the [SHBP].” ¶

In light of the foregoing, we vacate both Awards and remand (with one exception7/) to the arbitrator for re-calculation and issuance of new awards within 45 days from this decision. As per our guidance in New Milford, supra, for each matter on remand the arbitrator must: (1) state what the total base salary was for the last year of the expired contract and show the methodology as to how base salary was calculated, in particular with respect to any amount provided pursuant to a salary increment; (2) calculate the costs of the award to establish that the award will not increase the employer’s base salary costs in excess of 2% per contract year in the aggregate; (3) review the scattergram of the employees’ placement on the guide to determine the incremental costs in addition to the across-the-board raises awarded, if any; (4) determine the costs of any other economic benefit to the employees that was included in base salary; and (5) make a final calculation that the total economic award does not increase the employer’s costs for base salary by more than 2% per contract year in the aggregate.8/ ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The interest arbitration awards are vacated and remanded to the arbitrator for new awards within 45 days consistent with this decision. Any additional appeal by the parties must be filed within seven calendar days of service of the new award. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Eaton and Kushnir voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Papero recused himself. Commissioners Ford and Higgins were not present. ¶

ISSUED: September 4, 2024 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ When not otherwise cited by docket number, citations herein to each award shall be in the following format: “Local 183 Award at” ; and “Local 183A Award at” ; or collectively (if appropriate), “Awards at .” ¶

2/ On July 15, 2024, the Locals filed opposition to the County’s motions. On July 18, the Chair denied the County’s application, finding that under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16f(5)(b) the Commission lacks authority to stay implementation, and that the County otherwise does not satisfy each required factor for such relief. Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132- 34 (1982). ¶

3/ The County’s request for oral argument is denied. The issues have been fully briefed. ¶

4/ The County asserts the arbitrator “is explicitly admitting here to violating the 2% cap.” (County’s Br. at 32.) ¶

5/ The County asserts Local 183 did not provide a cost calculation of increments in its final offer and did not dispute the County’s charts establishing the roster of unit members as it existed on December 31, 2017. (County’s Br. at 9-11.) ¶

6/ Four County police unions, including Locals 183 and 183A, did not settle, and instead filed unfair practice charges over the change in health plans. These matters were consolidated, and, on June 29, 2023, PERC denied motions and cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the unfair practice claims asserted by Local 183 and 183A, finding a hearing was required to resolve disputed issues of material fact on those claims. P.E.R.C. No. 2023-60, 50 NJPER 43 (¶15 2023). In the same decision, PERC granted summary judgment on the charges of the other police unions, including FOP Lodge 106, finding the County’s unilateral change in health plans violated the Act as to those unions. The Appellate Division upheld that decision. (App. Div., May 7, 2024). To date, a merits hearing remains pending, and no final agency decision has been reached on whether the County’s action, as it pertains to Locals 183 and 183A, was an unfair practice. In opposition to the County’s appeal Local 183 cites an interest arbitration award (also discussed in both the Local 183 and 183A Awards) issued on February 15, 2024, that awarded a three-year contract covering FOP 106, a different term than either party proposed. This was in part based upon FOP 106’s decision not to accept the County’s two-year settlement offer, retaining its statutory right to pursue (and ultimately prevail on) its unfair practice charges over the health benefit change. The arbitrator in that case reasoned that FOP 106 “should not be forced to accept a lower long-term deal as a result of the County’s illegal act.” Cty of Essex and FOP Lodge 106, IA-2024-004, at 51. Local 183 likewise argues that the shorter-duration contract awarded here “will not provide the County with a windfall” while the unfair practice proceeding is still pending. (Local 183 Br. at 9.) ¶

7/ Regarding the Local 183A Award, we affirm the arbitrator’s determination regarding the unit’s composition vis-à-vis the five promoted officers. ¶

8/ We note that for non-2% cap cases, arbitrators may use discretion in deciding whether the record supports the consideration of savings from retirements or costs from new hires that occurred since the previous CNA expired, either as part of the overall costing or as a separate collateral analysis. Hopewell Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-10, 46 NJPER (¶26 2019). ¶