P.E.R.C. No. 2025-30, Willingboro B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of WILLINGBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-005 WILLINGBORO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. Intervenor. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants, in part, and denies, in part, the Board’s motion for summary judgment on the Association’s unfair practice charge, which alleges that the Board violated the Act when it made anti-union statements at two Board meetings. The charge further alleges the Board retaliated against the Association President for reading a “Vote of No Confidence” statement about a supervisor, eliminating her position, not hiring her for a position she applied for, transferring her, and issuing her and two other Association members “partially effective” observation scores. The Commission finds that the Board members’ statements did not rise to the level of interfering with Association members’ rights. The Commission further finds that the record supports that the Association President’s position was eliminated for a legitimate operational reason. However, the Commission also finds that there are genuine issues of disputed facts regarding whether the Association President was retaliated against when she was not hired for another position, when she was transferred and when she received a “partially effective” observation score. However, regarding the Association’s claims of retaliation for two other Association members, the Commission finds that the record does not establish a sufficient nexus between their “partially effective” observation score and protected activity. ¶

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 WILLINGBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-005 WILLINGBORO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, ¶

Taylor Law Group, LLC, attorneys, (Philip H. Gertner, Esq., of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Charging Party, ¶

Zeller and Wieliczko, LLP, attorneys (Amy L. Gillette, Esq., of counsel and on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On July 22, 2024, the Willingboro Board of Education (Board) filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Willingboro Education Association’s (Association) unfair practice charge (UPC or charge) filed on July 20, 2023, which was subsequently amended on July 24 and September 8.1/ The charge alleges that the Board violated 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/, when it interfered with employee’s rights under the Act by making anti-union statements at the February 27, and March 13, 2023 Board meeting. The charge further alleges the Board retaliated against the Association President for reading a “Vote of No Confidence Statement” (Statement) about a supervisor. The Association alleges that the Board retaliated by: eliminating the Association President’s position; not hiring her for a position she applied for; transferring her; and issuing her (and two other Association members partially effective observation scores. ¶

On January 4, 2024, the Director of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Board filed a brief with exhibits and the certifications of its Interim Superintendent and counsel. On August 16, 2024, the Association filed a reply letter brief with an exhibit opposing the Board’s motion. The Association did not provide a certification in support of its factual assertions or authenticating the proffered exhibits. The following facts appear. ¶

SUMMARY OF FACTS ¶

The Board and the Association are, respectively, public employer and public employee representative within the meaning of the Act. The Association is the exclusive representative of certain Board employees set forth in Article 1, Recognition, of the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA), including but not limited to certificated teachers and reading specialists. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA with a term of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025. ¶

February 27 and March 13, 2023 Board Meetings ¶

At the February 27, 2023 Board meeting, the Association President read the following Statement regarding a Supervisor of Language Arts (Supervisor), in pertinent part: ¶

As president of [the] Willingboro Education Association, I am here this evening to address the abysmal working conditions in the District involving [the Supervisor]. These working conditions have led to professional distractions that have taken valuable time and energy from our WEA members and most importantly AWAY from one of our essential stakeholders, our students. As educators, we come to work each day intent on focusing on the children in front of us, but due to the issue listed below, we've been left with no choice but to deal with these administrative problems too often. While our findings are many, there are major reasons [sic] I will share some of the reasons that I am speaking before you tonight. They are as follows: ¶

Resolution of Willingboro Education Association Members, with Respect to a Vote of No Confidence on the [Supervisor] on the 27th Day of February, 2023. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the Willingboro Education Association Members, [the Supervisor] has demonstrated a lack of leadership, lack of communication, and lack of support for the ELA and ESL teachers. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, she has created an environment devoid of trust or transparency. Educators are left not knowing what is happening with decisions in their school, nor do they trust that they're being made with the best interests of students in mind. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, she has failed to communicate effectively or efficiently. Often, our members have to wait days, weeks - and sometimes even MONTHS - for emails and phone calls to be returned. This is unacceptable and speaks volumes about her level of respect for us as educators who work with Willingboro's children every day. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, she has outright refused to listen or work with educators in the school building. There has been an unwillingness to address staff or student needs [sic] issues. When the needs of our students are left unmet or ignored, the WEA must speak up. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, time and time again, promises have been broken and failed to follow through on multiple district-level AND building-level initiatives. That is when the school district - led by you as BOE members - implements a new initiative that we, as WEA members, are excited about and ready to work on - she has failed to provide the time, space or resources that we need to bring these ideas to life. We're disappointed. We need change. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, she demonstrated poor observation skills - there have been far too many issues amongst our members for this to be an “us” issue. We can't ignore the common denominator when every WEA member has a similar problem. And, perhaps more egregious, there has been almost NO collaboration in curriculum planning or decision-making. As educators, we teach the importance of collaboration and feel completely disrespected by her unwillingness to work with us. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, which is most concerning, we believe an environment has been created that makes many staff fearful of retribution. As a result, many staff members fear speaking out about their concerns in our schools and the district. How can our teachers and support staff work when they're afraid? This is simply and utterly unacceptable. ¶

Whereas, in the opinion of the membership, many staff members have left Willingboro School district because of the constant feeling of [sic] ¶

Be it further resolved, that the Willingboro Education Association, on behalf of these members, support the Vote of No Confidence. This should send the parents, community, and the entire Board of Education a powerful message that the members of the union do not support the demeanor policies, vindictive decisions being made, and retaliation by use of evaluations. It is time for an immediate change in her role as ELA/ESL Supervisor because she has demonstrated by her actions that she is unfit for the position. ¶

In closing, [the Supervisor’s] decision has repeatedly caused problems in our school district. These problems have taken time, energy and resources away from our students. Although there have been numerous attempts over the years to resolve this issue, it failed on death ear [sic]. The WEA remains committed to serving the children and community of Willingboro. And as a result, we're respectfully asking you, the Board of Education, to take action to allow us, as WEA members, to focus on the needs of our students. ¶

Thank you. ¶

[Exhibit B to Statement of Charge. Emphasis in original.] ¶

The minutes of the February 27, 2023 Board meeting reflect that the Board President responded to the Association President’s Statement as follows: “She thanked the [Association] members and told them how she appreciated them and try [sic] to support their different events to show appreciation. She told them that the part she wasn’t certain about was the vote of no confidence, and did they bring it to the Interim Superintendent prior to the meeting to allow him the opportunity to investigate the matter and not be blind sided with surprises.” The Interim Superintendent certifies that no action was taken by the Board or any of its employees in response to the Association President’s Statement at the February 27 Board meeting. ¶

The minutes of the March 13, 2023 Board meeting reflect that the sister of the Supervisor read a statement “about following the proper chains of command and how at the last board meeting staff members spoke about a Supervisor without having any data or proof. There were petitions being sent around to be signed by parents and staff members for a vote of no confidence, even if they had no dealings with that Supervisor, just to raise the numbers. These actions were wrong and hurtful and should've been brought to the attention of the Superintendent before coming to the Board to put on a show.” ¶

Alleged instances of retaliation by the Board ¶

At the April 24, 2023 Board meeting, the Board eliminated the Reading Specialist Position held by the Association President, effective June 30, 2023. The Interim Superintendent certifies that she recommended the abolishment of the Reading Specialist position to address low test scores and poor academic performance throughout the District. The Board abolished 17 total positions3/, including five Reading Specialist positions. ¶

The Association asserts that on June 22, 2023, the Association President was notified that she would be transferred from her position of Reading Specialist at “Country Club Admin Building” to a Special Education Pre-K Teacher position at “J.C. Stuart ECDC” . The Interim Superintendent certifies that, on June 26, the Board approved the transfer with no reduction to the Association President’s salary or benefits. In response, the Association asserts that the Association President requested that she be reassigned to a Special Education Science Teacher at “Memorial Middle School” , which the Board accepted at its July 10, 2023 Board meeting. (Exhibit K to Statement of Charge.) Following the July 10th approved transfer, the Association President was again transferred from the “Memorial Middle School position to a Special Education 6th grade LD Teacher at J.A. Cotten Intermediate School” at the Board’s August 14 meeting. (Exhibit L to Statement of Charge.) ¶

The Association President then applied to a newly created position for Literacy Learning Specialist. A non-tenured teacher, who was subjected to a reduction in force, was hired to the Literacy Learning Specialist position. ¶

The Interim Superintendent certifies that the job description for the Reading Specialist position requires the following qualifications: ¶

a. New Jersey Teacher of Reading Certificate; and b. Bachelor’s Degree. ¶

She further certifies that the Literacy Learning Specialist position requires the following qualifications: ¶

a. Bachelor’s Degree; ¶

b. New Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate; ¶

c. New Jersey Special Education Teaching Certificate and/or Reading Specialists Certificate, Teacher of Reading, or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math Certificate; ¶

d. Minimum of three (3) years successful teaching experience; ¶

e. Preferred: Masters of Education; ¶

f. Knowledge of New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards; ¶

g. Possession of a driver’s license, valid in New Jersey, only if the operation of a vehicle, rather than employee mobility, is necessary to perform the essential duties of the position; ¶

h. Experience working with high needs students with proven results; and ¶

I. Two letters of recommendation, which should include one from a current principal or supervisor. ¶

The Interim Superintendent certifies that the Association President maintains the required certification from the New Jersey Department of Education Board of Examiners, and otherwise possesses all of the qualifications for the Reading Specialist position. However, she further certifies that the Association President does not possess a New Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate as required by subsection b of the Literacy Learning Specialist job description. ¶

On May 2, 2023, the Supervisor observed the Association President, which resulted in a partially effective score of “1.88” . On May 3, the Association President submitted a written rebuttal to her observation. On July 5, the Association President filed a grievance regarding the partially effective score which is pending at the Board level. The Association submitted “partially effective” observation scores for two other Association members, S.B. and N.C., along with their written rebuttals to the observations. Only one of these employees was observed by the Supervisor. ¶

The Commissioner of Education’s decision in the Association President’s Petition of Appeal for violation of her tenure rights. ¶

On August 2, 2023, the Association President filed a Petition of Appeal with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education (Commissioner), alleging a violation of her tenure rights. That matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing. During the OAL hearing, the Board’s Superintendent submitted a certification stating that the Association President was unqualified for the Literacy Learning Specialist because she did not possess the required certification pursuant to subsection c of the Literacy Learning Specialist job description. On October 25, 2024, the Commissioner issued a final decision4/, adopting the Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision that the Board did not violate the Association President’s tenure or seniority rights when it abolished the Reading Specialist Position, declined to hire her for the Literacy Learning Specialist position, and transferred her to a position within the scope of her certification that did not result in any reduction of salary or benefits. However, the Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s findings that the Reading Specialist and Literacy Learning Specialist positions were substantially similar, required dual certification, and that the Association President was unqualified for the Literacy Learning Specialist position. The Commissioner concluded that it was unnecessary to make further findings regarding the ALJ’s aforementioned findings because the Association President’s tenure and seniority rights were not violated. ¶

THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶

Summary judgment will be granted if there are no material facts in dispute and the movant is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 73-75 (1954). N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(e) provides: ¶

If it appears from the pleadings, together with the briefs, affidavits and other documents filed that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant or cross-movant is entitled to its requested relief as a matter of law, the motion or cross-motion for summary judgment may be granted and the requested relief may be ordered. ¶

In determining whether there exists a “genuine issue” of material fact that precludes summary judgment, we must “consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 540. We “must grant all the favorable inferences to the non-movant.” Id. at 536. A motion for summary judgment should be granted with extreme caution and may not be substituted for a plenary trial. Baer v. Sorbello, 177 N.J. Super. 183, 185 (App. Div. 1981), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 388 (1981). Summary judgment “should be denied unless the right thereto appears so clearly as to leave no room for controversy.” Saldana v. DeMedio, 275 N.J. Super. 488, 495 (App. Div. 1995). ¶

However, a charging party opposing summary judgment cannot simply rely on the allegations of its charge or attachments thereto to create a material factual dispute. Mercer Cty Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-2, 43 NJPER 65, 67-68 (¶16 2016), recon. den., P.E.R.C. No. 2017-15, 43 NJPER 114 (¶33 2016); see also, PBA Local 351-A (SOA) and Anthony Pizarro, P.E.R.C. No. 2009-7, 34 NJPER 243 (¶82 2008)( “When a respondent files a motion for summary judgment and presents facts by way of certification, the charging party cannot rely on the allegations in its charge, but must file its own certification setting forth specific facts and showing that there is a genuine issue for hearing” ); PBA Local 187, P.E.R.C. No. 2005-61, 31 NJPER 60, 61 (¶29 2005)( “A charging party cannot rely on the allegations in its charge or any attachments to its charge to create a material factual dispute” ). In order to satisfy its burden of proof on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material facts exists. Brill at 528-29. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence there is a genuine issue for trial. Ibid. The non-moving party must respond with affidavits setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Ibid. If the non-moving party "points only to disputed issues of fact that are of an insubstantial nature, the proper disposition is summary judgment.” Ibid. ¶

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES ¶

The Board argues its motion should be granted because the factual record establishes that the Board did not violate subsections 5.4a(1) or a(3) of the Act. The comments made by Board members at the February 27 and March 23, 2023 Board meetings, as evidenced by the meeting minutes, were related to a legitimate business purpose and not an anti-union motive. The Board proffers that its decision to abolish the Reading Specialist position was not retaliatory, but rather, intended to address low test scores and poor academic performance throughout the District. And, its decision to not offer the Literacy Learning Specialist position to the Association President was based on her lack of qualifications for the position. ¶

The Association responds that the Board’s motion should be denied because there are disputed issues of material fact requiring a hearing. The Association disputes that the President was unqualified for the Literacy Learning Specialist. The Association claims that the Association President was given multiple opportunities to interview for the Literacy Learning Specialist position despite her alleged lack of qualification. The Board’s rationale that the President was not qualified was only first raised during the tenure rights case before the Commissioner of Education. The Association presents that the Superintendent’s certification in the tenure rights case is inconsistent with the Interim Superintendent’s certification here with regard to the alleged lack of qualification for the Literacy Learning Specialist position. The Association asserts that the temporal proximity - less than two months - between the Association President’s comments regarding the Supervisor and the elimination of her position, triggering the multiple transfers, indicates the Board’s retaliatory motive. Lastly, the Association notes that the Board’s motion does not respond to the Association’s claims regarding the Supervisor’s “partially effective” scores of the Association members. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

Did the Board interfere with the Association’s rights in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13a-5.4a(1) when Board members responded to the Association President’s Statement at the February 27 and March 13, 2023 Board Meetings? ¶

Public employers are prohibited from “[i]nterfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this Act.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1). This provision will be violated derivatively when an employer violates another unfair practice provision. Lakehurst Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2004-74, 30 NJPER 186 (¶69 2004). N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(3) prohibits public employers, their representatives, or agents, from: “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.” ¶

For claims alleging interference with an employee’s rights under the Act, a balancing test is applied weighing the employer’s right of free speech and the employees’ right to be free from coercion, restraint or interference in the exercise of protected rights. State of N.J. (Trenton State College), P.E.R.C. No. 88-19, 13 NJPER 720, 721 (¶18269 1987). The Act permits employers to express opinions about labor relations provided such statements are not coercive. Ibid. We find that the undisputed facts establish that the Board members expressed their opinion as to the manner in which the Association raised its concerns about the Supervisor. The Board member’s comments at the February 27 meeting questioned whether the Association’s concerns were raised to the Interim Superintendent prior to the meeting to allow him to investigate the matter. The Board member’s comments at the March 13 Board meeting critiqued the Association for not raising their concerns to the Superintendent prior to the meeting and for gathering signatures for the petition from individuals who had no experience with the Supervisor. The comments were procedural in nature and identified the Board members’ issues with the manner in which the Association’s concerns were raised. We find that while these statements were critical of the Association, they did not rise to the level of coercing, restraining or otherwise interfering with the Association’s representation of its members. Thus, we grant the Board’s summary judgment motion as to this part of the Unfair practice charge. ¶

Did the Board retaliate in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13a-5,4a(3) due to the Association President’s Statement? ¶

Allegations of anti-union discrimination under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(3) are governed by In re Bridgewater Tp., 95 N.J. 235, 240-246 (1984). Bridgewater established that the charging party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record, that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. This may be done by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence showing that the employee engaged in protected activity, the employer knew of this activity, and the employer was hostile toward the exercise of the protected rights. Id. at 246. If the employer did not present any evidence of a motive not illegal under our Act, or if its explanation has been rejected as pretextual, there is sufficient basis for finding a violation without further analysis. Id. at 241. Sometimes, however, the record demonstrates that both motives unlawful under our Act and other motives contributed to a personnel action. In these dual motive cases, the employer will not have violated the Act if it can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record, that the adverse action would have taken place absent the protected conduct. Id. at 242. ¶

Protected activity under the Act may include individual conduct – such as complaints, arguments, objections, letters or similar activity - related to enforcing a collective negotiations agreement or preserving working conditions of employees represented by a union. N.J. Turnpike Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-38, 48 NJPER 393 (¶90 2022); State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-11, 31 NJPER 276 (¶109 2005); and No. Brunswick Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 79-14, 4 NJPER 451 (¶4205 1978), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 63 (¶45 App. Div. 1979). Recently, we reversed a Hearing Examiner’s decision to grant a Board’s summary judgment motion in a Unfair practice charge partly because we found that the Association’s complaints voiced through a vote of no confidence constituted protected activity. Saddle River Bd, of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2025-12, 51 NJPER 135 (¶34 2024). ¶

“Timing is an important factor in assessing motivation and understanding the context of events” in retaliation claims. Warren Hills Reg. Bd. of Ed. and Warren Hills Reg. H.S. Ed. Ass’n, P.E.R.C. No. 2005-26, 30 NJPER 439 (¶145 2004), aff’d, 32 NJPER 8 (¶2 App. Div. 2005), certif. den., 186 N.J. 609 (2006). Here, we find there is temporal proximity between the alleged instances of retaliation and the Association President’s Statement. Following the February 27, 2023 Statement, the Reading Specialist positions were eliminated on April 24, the alleged low observation scores occurred on May 2, and the Association President was first transferred on July 22. ¶

However, the Interim Superintendent certifies that the Reading Specialist position was eliminated “to address low test scores and poor academic performance throughout the district.” In addition to the five eliminated Reading Specialist positions, twelve other positions were eliminated based on this educational rationale. The Association’s lack of certification and reliance on the assertions in its charge is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact to defeat the Board’s summary judgment motion on this specific issue. See Mercer Cty, supra. Thus, we grant summary judgment to the Board on the issue of whether it retaliated against the Association President by eliminating the Reading Specialist positions. ¶

However, there is a genuine issue of disputed fact regarding whether the Board retaliated against the Association President by not hiring her for the Literacy Learning Specialist Position. This is demonstrated by the different reasons proffered by the Board in the Commissioner of Education proceeding and this matter as to why she was not qualified for the position. Here, the Interim Superintendent certifies that the Association President was not qualified due to her not possessing a New Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate as required by subsection b of the Literacy Learning Specialist job description. In the Commissioner of Education matter, the Superintendent certified that the Association President was not qualified because she did not possess the required certification pursuant to subsection c of the Literacy Learning Specialist job description. These two conflicting rationales create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the Association President was qualified for the position. Additionally, the Association President was interviewed for the position despite the alleged lack of qualification. ¶

Regarding the Association President’s transfers following her Statement, the Board does not certify to any operational justification for the transfers. The Board relies on its general managerial prerogative to transfer employees. The Board also stresses that the Association President suffered no reduction in salary and benefits as a result of the transfers. While the Board generally has a managerial prerogative to transfer employees, it may not do so in retaliation for protected activity. The Commission has held that even a transfer accompanied by a salary increase does not show that it was not overall meant to be punitive. See Hudson Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 87-20, 12 NJPER 742 (¶17278 1986) (higher compensation after transfer due to shift differential); City of Plainfield, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-32, 47 NJPER 379 (¶89 2021)(no reduction in compensation). ¶

Lastly, there is the issue of the Association President’s “partially effective” observation score. The observation score was issued by the Supervisor. The Interim Superintendent’s certification does not address the Association’s claims that the Supervisor’s observation score was retaliatory. Additionally, neither the Board nor the Association provided any evidence that the partially effective observation score was a deviation from prior evaluations. ¶

However, regarding the Association’s claims of retaliatory low observation scores for the other two Association members, S.B and N.C., we find that the record does not establish a sufficient nexus between their “partially effective” observation scores and the protected activity (i.e. the Statement). We note that the record provides no other connection to protected activity on their parts except for the general reference to “Association members” in the Statement. Additionally, only one of their observations was conducted by the Supervisor. ¶

Weighing all of the above factors, the Association’s N.J.S.A. 34:13a-5.4a(3) claim is remanded for an evidentiary hearing with regard to the Association President only, consistent with the above findings. Thus, we partially grant and partially deny the Board’s motion for summary judgment. As detailed above, this matter presents some issues of disputed material facts that require an evidentiary hearing. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Willingboro Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to the Willingboro Education Association’s N.J.S.A. 34:13A-34a(1) allegation and also with regard to its N.J.S.A. 34:13A-34a(3) allegation as it relates to the elimination of the Association President’s position and the low observation scores for S.B. and N.C.. The Board’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to the Association’s remaining 34:13A-34a(3) allegations. The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with this decision. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: February 27, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ The September 8 amended ULP removed the allegations pertaining to the Association’s Secretary. ¶

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/ The other positions eliminated were the Supervisor of Mathematics, Supervisor of English Language Arts, Supervisor of Science, Supervisor of Guidance/Family Liason, Supervisor of Instructional Technology/Data, Supervisor of Social Studies, English as a Second Language, and Government Programs, Supervisor of Special Education, two Mathematics Coach positions, two English Language Arts Coach positions, Special Education Teacher Coach, and five Reading Specialist positions. (See Exhibit I to Statement of Charge.) ¶

4/ On October 24, 2024, the Commission’s Deputy General Counsel sent a letter to the Acting Commissioner notifying the Commissioner and OAL of the Association’s pending unfair practice charge and that the Commission “believes the partes are in the best position to inform the Commissioner as to whether a motion for consolidation and predominate interest was or is appropriate, to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions from the DOE and PERC.” On October 28, the Department of Education responded that the parties did not request a consolidation or predominate interest determination, and thus, a decision, Docket No. 210-8/23, was issued in the usual course. ¶