P.E.R.C. No. 2025-43, Bloomfield Tp

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-017 BLOOMFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT SOA, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Township’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration. The SOA’s grievance alleges that the Township is denying a grievant healthcare, prescription and dental benefits at no cost upon his retirement. The grievant had returned to active duty following a disability retirement and was subsequently informed that he would have to make healthcare contributions upon his retirement. The Commission finds that SOA’s grievance concerning the grievant’s eligibility for employer-paid health benefits in retirement is mandatorily negotiable and legally arbitrable. The Commission further finds that the SOA’s claim is ripe and the Commission is not issuing an advisory opinion because the grievance is specifically centered on whether the grievant is eligible for employer-paid health care in retirement. ¶

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 TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-017 BLOOMFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT SOA, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Antonelli Kantor Rivera, P.C., attorneys (Ramon E. Rivera, of counsel; John J.D. Burke, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Caruso Smith Picini, attorneys (Timothy Smith, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 28, 2025, the Township of Bloomfield (Township or Department) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Bloomfield Police Department Superior Officers Association (SOA). The grievance alleges that the Township is denying the Grievant healthcare, prescription and dental benefits at no cost upon his upcoming retirement. The Township filed a brief, exhibits and the certification of the Assistant Township Administrator. The SOA did not file a responsive brief or certification.1/ These facts appear. ¶

The SOA represents all Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captain and Deputy Chiefs in the Department. The Township and SOA are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with a term of January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

On October 1, 1991, the Grievant was enrolled in the New Jersey Division of Pensions and Benefits. On September 1, 1993, the Grievant was hired by the Department. In November 2005, the Grievant retired on a disability-related pension from the Department because of a work-related injury. In May 2013, the Grievant returned to the police department after being cleared fit for duty by the Division of Pensions and Benefits. ¶

On or about November 7, 2020, the Township and SOA entered into a settlement agreement that included, inter alia, a provision that required members who retire after December 31, 2020 to contribute toward their health benefits in retirement. The settlement agreement provides, in pertinent part: ¶

b. Any PBA and/or SOA member who retires on or before December 31, 2020 shall not contribute toward their health benefits in retirement and shall be reimbursed for any payments made, as a retiree, toward the cost of health benefits prior to this agreement. ¶

* * * d. Any PBA and/or SOA member who retires during the term of the successor collective bargaining agreement shall contribute 1.5% of pension-based salary toward their health benefits in retirement. ¶

The CNA’s Article XIII, subsection F(iv) provides a table of contributions that are required of SOA retires as follows: ¶

Retirement date between: ¶

January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 ¶

1.5% of retirement salary/allowance ¶

January 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022 ¶

1.5% of retirement salary/allowance ¶

January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023 ¶

2.0% of retirement salary/allowance ¶

January 1, 2024 - December 31, 2024 ¶

2.5% of retirement salary/allowance ¶

January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025 ¶

2.5% of retirement salary/allowance ¶

There are no exceptions to either the settlement agreement or the CNA for specific individuals or groups of employees. ¶

On December 9, 2024, the SOA filed the following grievance, which states in pertinent part: ¶

[The Grievant] is a current member of the Bloomfield Police Department. [The Grievant] had been out on a disability pension due to a work related injury while a member of the Bloomfield Police Department. [The Grievant] was able to recover from his injuries and came back to work. During his time he medically retired from Bloomfield he had full medical benefits with no cost. [The Grievant] has since come back to work and has continued service Bloomfield. [sic] [The Grievant] returned to service and was advised that he would be the last member who would receive medical benefits at no cost. This was due to his service time and the fact he was already receiving the benefit from Bloomfield when he was medically retired. [The Grievant] would have retired under the last contract but due to his work injury he had to make up some time in order to retire with a standard special retirement pension. ¶

[The Grievant] is being denied his healthcare, prescription and dental benefits at no cost in his upcoming retirement after being assured upon his decision to return that he would be the last member of the department to get the benefit and after already receiving that benefit while he retired the first time for the medical reasons. ¶

This grievance is filed on behalf of [the Grievant], and any similarly affected member of the bargaining unit past, present or future. ¶

On January 15, 2022, the Township denied the SOA’s grievance, concluding that, “(1) [The Grievant] has not retired and the grievance is not ripe, (2) the parties’ contracts do not provide for any exceptions whatsoever to the December 31, 2020 cutoff for retirement contributions, and (3) [the Grievant] could never have obtained 20 years of service by June 28, 2011 to be exempt from Chapter 78.” ¶

On January 16, 2025, the SOA submitted a request for arbitration to the New Jersey State Board of Mediation. On February 25, 2025, an arbitrator was assigned to the matter; however, a date for the arbitration has yet to be scheduled. This petition ensued.2/ ¶

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 contractual merits of the grievance or any contractual defenses the employer may have. ¶

The scope of negotiations for police officers and firefighters is broader than for other public employees because N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16 provides for a permissive as well as a mandatory category of negotiations. Paterson Police PBA No. 1 v. City of Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 92-93 (1981), outlines the steps of a scope of negotiations analysis for firefighters and police: ¶

First, it must be determined whether the particular item in dispute is controlled by a specific statute or regulation. If it is, the parties may not include any inconsistent term in their agreement. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54, 81 (l978). If an item is not mandated by statute or regulation but is within the general discretionary powers of a public employer, the next step is to determine whether it is a term or condition of employment as we have defined that phrase. An item that intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of police and firefighters, like any other public employees, and on which negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent or express management prerogatives is mandatorily negotiable. In a case involving police and firefighters, if an item is not mandatorily negotiable, one last determination must be made. If it places substantial limitations on government’s policymaking powers, the item must always remain within managerial prerogatives and cannot be bargained away. However, if these governmental powers remain essentially unfettered by agreement on that item, then it is permissively negotiable. ¶

Arbitration is permitted if the subject of the grievance is mandatorily or permissively negotiable. See Middletown Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 82-90, 8 NJPER 227 (¶13095 1982), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 130 (¶111 App. Div. 1983). Thus, if a grievance is either mandatorily or permissively negotiable, then an arbitrator can determine whether the grievance should be sustained or dismissed. Where a statute or regulation addresses a term and condition of employment, negotiations are preempted only if it speaks in the imperative and fixes a term and condition of employment expressly, specifically and comprehensively. Bethlehem Tp. Ed. Ass’n v. Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed., 91 N.J. 38, 44 (1982); State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54, 80-82 (1978). Paterson bars arbitration only if the agreement alleged is preempted or would substantially limit government’s policy-making powers. ¶

The Township argues that the Grievant is currently employed by the Department, has not yet retired, and the grievance deals solely with his ineligibility for no-cost health and other benefits upon his retirement in the future. As such, the Township argues that no actual controversy has arisen, and thus, the grievance is not ripe for adjudication. The Township asserts that the Commission has held that it will not issue advisory opinions relating to future events that are not ripe for consideration. Thus, the Township requests a restraint of binding arbitration of the SOA’s grievance. ¶

Health benefits for future retirees are mandatorily negotiable as long as the particular benefit at issue is not preempted by statute or regulation. City of Clifton, P.E.R.C. No. 2019-48, 45 NJPER 413 (¶111 2019); Essex Cty. Sheriff, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-86, 32 NJPER 164 (¶73 2006); Watchung Bor., P.E.R.C. No.2000-93, 26 NJPER 276 (¶31109 2000); Atlantic Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 95-66, 21 NJPER 127 (¶26079 1995). Thus, we find the issue raised in the SOA’s grievance concerning the Grievant’s eligibility for employer-paid health benefits in retirement is mandatorily negotiable and legally arbitrable. ¶

Additionally, we disagree with the Township that the SOA’s grievance is not ripe because the Grievant has not yet submitted a retirement date. The filing of a grievance with respect to a matter sought to be submitted to binding arbitration is one of four conditions that establish the grounds for filing a scope petition. N.J.A.C. 19:13-2.2(a)(iv)(ii). That condition has been satisfied here. The SOA filed a grievance for the purpose of determining the Grievant’s eligibility for employer-paid health care in retirement. The Township in its response to that grievance took a conclusive position that the Grievant was ineligible for employer-paid health care in retirement. The SOA now seeks to move this matter to binding grievance arbitration, and it has a cognizable interest in identifying the Grievant’s health care costs in retirement for his retirement planning purposes. ¶

The Township’s reliance on Town of Hammonton, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-53, 48 NJPER 34 (¶8 2021) is misplaced. In that case, the focus of the dispute was whether a grievance was statutorily preempted by N.J.S.A. 11A:6-19.2 with regard to an officer’s eligibility for the payment of accumulated sick leave upon his voluntary termination and transfer to another municipal police department. Since the statute explicitly provided for the payment of such benefit “upon an employee’s retirement” the Commission restrained arbitration of the grievance, finding the issue was statutorily preempted. The Commission declined to address the issue of whether the grievant would be eligible for the accumulated sick leave benefit in retirement, as that issue was not central to the dispute. Here, the SOA’s claim is ripe as the grievance is specifically centered on whether the Grievant is eligible for employer-paid health care in retirement. ¶

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the Township’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration. The Township may raise to the arbitrator the merits of its legal arguments and contractual defenses regarding its view that the Grievant is ineligible for employer-paid health benefits in retirement. Ridgefield Park. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request of the Township of Bloomfield for a restraint of binding arbitration is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: May 29, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(f) requires that all pertinent facts be supported by certifications based upon personal knowledge. ¶

2/ On March 18, 2025, the Township of Bloomfield filed a request for interim relief. The Commission Case Administrator advised the Township that since an arbitration hearing had not yet been scheduled, the filing for a request for interim relief was premature and would not be processed. ¶