P.E.R.C. No. 2025-24, Saddle River B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of SADDLE RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2022-100 SADDLE RIVER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Commission denies the Saddle River Board of Education’s motion for reconsideration of a Commission decision, P.E.R.C. No. 2025-12. In that decision the Commission remanded the Saddle River Education Association’s unfair practice charge against the Board for a hearing, reversing a Hearing Examiner’s summary judgment decision on the Board’s motion, H.E. 2024-013. The charge alleged the Board reassigned eight teachers to new teaching positions in retaliation for the teachers’ protected activity. The Commission found the Association’s workplace complaints concerning the Board’s Superintendent (including grievances, votes of no confidence, and the reassigned teachers’ participation in a workplace investigation of complaints against the Superintendent) constituted protected activity within the meaning of the Act; and that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to assess the credibility of the Board’s defense that the reassignments were based on legitimate operational reasons. The Commission finds the Board, by reiterating arguments previously raised and addressed, does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance warranting reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2025-12. The Commission further expressly finds that a claim of retaliation against employees for participating in a workplace investigation (of alleged violations of state or federal laws that protect employees’ rights in the workplace) is an unfair practice claim subject to PERC’s exclusive unfair practice jurisdiction. ¶

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 SADDLE RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2022-100 SADDLE RIVER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys (Matthew J. Giacobbe, of counsel, Frances L. Febres, on the brief) ¶

For the Charging Party, Zazzali PC, attorneys ¶

(Raymond M. Baldino, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On October 11, 2024, the Respondent, Saddle River Board of Education (Board), filed a motion for reconsideration of a Commission decision issued on September 26, 2024, P.E.R.C. No. 2025-12, 51 NJPER 135 (¶34 2024). In that decision the Commission, comprehensively addressing exceptions filed by the Charging Party, Saddle River Education Association (Association) and the Board’s opposition thereto1/, reversed a Hearing Examiner’s Report and Recommended Decision, H.E. 2024-013, which granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed an unfair practice charge (Charge) filed by the Association. The Charge alleged that the Board reassigned eight teachers to new teaching positions in retaliation for the teachers’ protected activity, in violation of subsections 5.4a(1) and (3) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.2/ The Hearing Examiner found the reassigned teachers were not engaged in protected activity, and if they were, the Board was unaware of it. ¶

In reversing and remanding for a hearing, the Commission found that the Association’s workplace complaints concerning the Board’s Superintendent (the record showed numerous grievances, two votes of no confidence, and the reassigned teachers’ participation in a workplace investigation of complaints against the Superintendent) constituted protected activity within the meaning of the Act. The Commission further found that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to assess the credibility of the Board’s defense that the reassignments were based on legitimate operational reasons, not hostility towards protected activity, and thus summary judgment was not appropriate. The parties have filed briefs, respectively, in support of and opposition to the Board’s motion for reconsideration. ¶

N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.4 states, in pertinent part: ¶

Reconsideration will only be granted based on a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance. The movant shall specify and bear the burden of establishing the grounds warranting reconsideration. ¶

Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to reiterate facts or arguments that were, or could have been, previously raised. See Bergen Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-20, 45 NJPER 208 (¶54 2018), denying recon. I.R. No. 2019-6, 45 NJPER 123 (¶33 2018); and Union Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2002-55, 28 NJPER 198 (¶33070 2002), denying recon. I.R. No. 2002-7, 28 NJPER 86 (¶3031 2001). ¶

In support of reconsideration, the Board reiterates arguments raised in opposition to the Association’s exceptions to the Hearing Examiner’s decision. These include the Board equating the votes of no confidence to mere “personal griping” about the Superintendent that did not amount to protected activity and contending that in any case the Association’s certification that its membership voted unanimously does not establish that the reassigned teachers took part in either the votes of no confidence or their presentation to the Board. The Commission fully addressed these arguments.3/ By repeating them here the Board does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. ¶

The Board also reiterates its argument (raised in its motion for summary judgment before the Hearing Examiner) that participation in a workplace investigation into alleged violations of civil rights and federal laws cannot be the basis for an alleged violation of Section 5.4(a)(1) of the Act because such laws “fall outside of PERC’s jurisdiction.” We disagree. ¶

Section 5.4(a)(1) protects public employees “in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” Such rights include the right to choose a majority representative “to act for and to negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit” and, when “agreement is reached on the terms and conditions of employment,” to have such agreement “embodied in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the public employer and the majority representative.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. Our Supreme Court has held: “statutes and regulations are effectively incorporated by reference as terms of any collective agreement covering employees to which they apply.” West Windsor Tp. v. PERC, 78 N.J. 98, 116 (1978). See also, Old Bridge Bd. of Education v. Old Bridge Education Assoc., 98 N.J. 523, 527-28 (1985). As such, alleged violations of state or federal laws that protect employees’ rights in the workplace are “cognizable as grievances” subject to the negotiated agreement. West Windsor. Thus, a claim that a public employer retaliated against employees for participating in such a workplace investigation is an unfair practice claim subject to PERC’s exclusive unfair practice jurisdiction. N.J.S.A. 34:13-5.4c.4/ ¶

The Board also reiterates its argument that because the eight reassigned teachers did not personally file the Association’s numerous workplace grievances,5/ the Association cannot establish that the reassignments were retaliatory. Again, mere reiteration of previously raised (and addressed)6/ arguments does not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. ¶

Considering the foregoing, we find that the Board has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Saddle River Board of Education’s motion for reconsideration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Eaton, Ford, Higgins, Kushnir, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: January 30, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ The Commission meticulously reviewed the record, the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact and conclusions of law, and the parties’ submissions in its 27-page decision, some 15 pages of which detail extensive modifications of facts found by the Hearing Examiner, as supplemented with citations to the record evidence. 51 NJPER at 137-40. ¶

2/ These provisions prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: “(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act” ; “(3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” ¶

3/ See 51 NJPER at 141 (concluding, “A genuine dispute of material fact exists over whether the Superintendent knew that the eight reassigned teachers participated in the votes of no confidence and the workplace investigation. . . . [D]etermining whether there is a causal connection between these events requires an evidentiary hearing where witness credibility can be assessed.” ) ¶

4/ The Board’s report detailing the workplace investigation explicitly acknowledged that any unfair practice claims were outside the Board’s obligation to investigate. 51 NJPER at 140 (¶17, modifying Fact 18 of the H.E. Decision). ¶

5/ See 51 NJPER at 137 (¶7, modifying and supplementing Fact 8 of the H.E. Decision). ¶

6/ See 51 NJPER at 141, wherein we found (emphasis added): ¶

[T]the Association’s workplace complaints, voiced through the filing of numerous grievances, the two votes of no confidence, and the reassigned teachers’ participation in the workplace investigation constituted protected activity. These actions by the Association comprised its cumulative concerns and efforts over the working conditions of its members. Further, the January 2021 Vote of No Confidence was not mere personal griping by the Association, but restated numerous workplace issues that were the subject of the various grievances filed by the Association throughout 2020 and 2021. ¶