P.E.R.C. No. 2025-44, Ocean Cty

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of New Jersey State PBA, Local 379 Sheriff’s Officers, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-088 Ocean County, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies New Jersey State PBA Local 379’s appeal of D.U.P. 2025-7, which refused to issue a complaint on an unfair practice charge filed by the PBA. The charge alleged that Ocean County violated sections 5.4a(1) and a(5) when it did not fully respond to grievances and by engaging in surface-bargaining during the grievance process because the County Sheriff and County Administrator did not participate in the grievance process. The Commission finds that because the grievance process was self-executing, and that the charge did not allege a policy of repudiating the grievance process, the Director of Unfair Practices’ decision is affirmed. The Commission further finds that the charge did not contain sufficient facts, which, if true, supported a claim of surface bargaining. ¶

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 New Jersey State PBA, Local 379 Sheriff’s Officers, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-88 Ocean County, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, O’ Brien, Belland & Bushinsky, LLC, attorneys (Mark E. Belland, of counsel and on the brief; David F. Watkins and Matthew B. Madsen, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, P.C., attorneys (Robert J. Merryman, of counsel) ¶

Decision ¶

This matter comes before the Commission on appeal of the Director of Unfair Practices Decision D.U.P. No. 2025-7, 51 NJPER 284 (¶64 2025) which declined to issue a Complaint on an unfair practice charge (UPC) filed by the New Jersey State Police Benevolent Association Local 379 (PBA) against Ocean County (County). The UPC, filed on December 12, 2023 and amended on December 19, alleged that the County violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.1/, when it did not fully respond to grievances filed by the PBA and/or by designating the County’s Head of Employment Relations to process grievances instead of the County Sheriff or County Administrator. ¶

After the parties participated in exploratory discussions, the Director issued his decision dismissing the amended UPC on February 24, 2025. The Director found the CNA contained a self- executing grievance procedure,2/ and that the alleged facts did not amount to a blanket policy to deny or refuse to process grievances. ¶

The PBA appealed that determination to the Commission on March 6, 2025 and the County filed its opposition brief on March 20. The PBA avers the following facts in its charge. ¶

The PBA represents Sheriff’s officers employed by the County. The parties are subject to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) that contains a grievance procedure ending in binding arbitration. It states: ¶

B. The purpose of this procedure is to secure, at the lowest possible level, equitable solutions to the problems that may from time to time arise affecting Officers. Both parties agree that these proceedings will be kept informal and confidential at any level of the procedure. ¶

C. Procedure ¶

1. Time limits – the number of days indicated at each level should be considered as a maximum and every effort should be made to expedite the process. The time limits specified may, however, be extended by mutual agreement. ¶

2. Level One – Immediate Superior – An officer with a grievance shall first discuss it with his/her immediate superior, either directly or through the Association’s designated representative, with the objective of resolving the matter informally. ¶

3. Level Two – County Sheriff – If the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the disposition of his/her grievance at Level One, or if no decision has been rendered within five (5) working days after the presentation of the grievance, he/she may file the grievance in writing with the PBA within five (5) days after the decision at Level One or ten (10) working days after the grievance was presented, whichever is sooner. Within five (5) working days after receiving the written grievance, the Association shall refer it to the Sheriff. ¶

4. Level Three – County Administrator – If the aggrieved party is not satisfied with the disposition of the grievance at Level Two, or if no decision has been rendered within then (10) working days after the grievance was delivered to the Sheriff whichever is sooner, he/she may request in writing, that the PBA submit his/her grievance to the County Administrator for disposition. ¶

5. Level Four – Arbitration – Within (10) days, if the aggrieved party is not satisfied with the disposition of this grievance at Level Three, he/she may request in writing that the PBA submit his/her grievance to arbitration … ¶

Charging Party’s Br., Ex. B, p. 14. ¶

In its UPC, the PBA alleges the following occurred over a three-month period in late 2023: ¶

PBA 379 President Kevin Allmann sent emails on September 5 and 12, 2023 to Sheriff Michael Mastronardy and Undersheriff Jon Lombardi regarding unilateral shift changes and violations of the CNA. The employer failed to fully respond to these emails and the issues raised in these emails. ¶

PBA 379 President Kevin Allmann sent emails on November 22, 2023 to Sheriff Michael Mastronardy and Captain Craig Johnson regarding failure to provide advance notices of details and related issues. The employer failed to fully respond to these emails and the issues raised in these emails. ¶

PBA 379 President Kevin Allmann sent emails on September 27, 2023, and various dates in October 2023 pursuant to the grievance procedure regarding numerous issues to the Sheriff and others. The Sheriff is not responding to this or any grievance and is having the head of employee relations ultimately respond to some grievances. ¶

County management originally agreed with PBA 379's position on these issues but later disagreed. The County is further not participating in the grievance process by directing all matters to the head of employee relations. ¶

[Amended UPC, Dec. 19, 2023.] ¶

A charging party must satisfy the following pleading requirement, in pertinent part: ¶

(a) Such charge . . . shall contain the following: ¶

. . . ¶

3. A clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice. The statement must specify the date and place the alleged acts occurred, the names of the persons alleged to have committed such acts, the subsection(s) of the Act alleged to have been violated, and the relief sought. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3.] ¶

Our standard for issuing a complaint on an unfair practice charge is as follows: ¶

After a charge has been processed, if it appears to the Director of Unfair Practices that the allegations of the charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices on the part of the respondent, and that formal proceedings should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues, the Director shall issue and serve a formal complaint including a notice of hearing before a hearing examiner at a stated time and place. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a).] ¶

The PBA argues that it lacked an adequate opportunity to present supplemental evidence to the Director prior to the issuance of the decision dismissing the charge.3/ It further argues that the UPC presented sufficient evidence that warranted the issuance of a complaint. Specifically, the PBA avers that the Director incorrectly determined that the allegations in the UPC did not amount to a repudiation of the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure. The PBA argues that the Sheriff’s refusal to participate in the grievance process, as required by the CNA, and the County’s choice to designate an employee without decision-making authority reduces the process to “surface- bargaining.” Further, the PBA contends that the existence of a “self-executing” grievance procedure and the availability of arbitration does not cure the County’s consistent failure to respond to grievances. ¶

In opposition, the County contends that the Director correctly decided that the UPC did not allege sufficient facts warranting the issuance of a Complaint. The County argues that the Sheriff oversees a large department and cannot personally respond to every issue raised by the PBA. It also contends that it is a matter of managerial prerogative for the County to determine which County official or employee can best address a particular concern. Further, the County argues that the CNA intends for the grievance process to be relatively informal, and that it has never instituted a blanket policy denying certain types of grievances or otherwise obstructed the process. ¶

The Commission affirms the Director’s decision, finding that the statement of the charge lacks sufficient factual basis for the issuance of a Complaint. ¶

The Act mandates that the “majority representative and designated representatives of the public employer shall meet at reasonable times and negotiate in good faith with respect to grievances, disciplinary disputes, and other terms and conditions of employment.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. The Act further requires that: ¶

Public employers shall negotiate written policies setting forth grievance and disciplinary review procedures by means of which their employees or representatives of employees may appeal the interpretation, application or violation of policies, agreements, and administrative decisions, including disciplinary determinations, affecting them, provided that such grievance and disciplinary review procedures shall be included in any agreement entered into between the public employer and the representative organization. Such grievance and disciplinary review procedures may provide for binding arbitration as a means for resolving disputes. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. ¶

The Commission has held that the failure to respond to a grievance where there is a self-executing process is generally not a repudiation of the grievance procedure and therefore not a violation of the Act. State (Treasury), P.E.R.C. No. 89-39, 14 NJPER 656 (¶19277 1988) (self-executing mechanism is a sufficient cure for an employer’s occasional lapse in following grievance procedure). However, where an employer establishes a policy of blanket-denying certain types of grievances, or does not participate in the process at all, the Commission has determined that it constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith. See Newark, P.E.R.C. 90-83, 16 NJPER 182 (¶21078 1990) (employer’s blanket refusal to process disciplinary grievances violated the Act); see also NJ Transit Bus Operations, Inc., P.E.R.C. 89-29, 14 NJPER 638 (¶19267 1988) (employer’s refusal to process grievances if employee was not present at the hearing violated the Act). ¶

The UPC in this case does not allege that the employer established a formal policy of denying all grievances, or certain types of grievances. Instead, the UPC describes, for a very limited time period, a pattern of not “fully” responding to grievances or delegating a response to the Head of Employment Relations. These allegations, alone, do not detail an abandonment of the grievance process by the employer, but rather establish that the PBA did not receive, in its view, a satisfactory response to some grievances for a limited time period. Moreover, the PBA is free to move any grievance to the next step in the process, including arbitration. Therefore, the PBA’s claims do not constitute a repudiation of the grievance procedure and is not a violation of the Act. ¶

We now address whether the Sheriff and County Administrator’s lack of personal participation in the grievance process violates the Act. The Act requires “designated representatives” of the public employer to engage in the process. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. The CNA designates both the Sheriff and County Administrator to respond at different stages of the grievance process. ¶

As a practical matter, there would be great difficulty if the Sheriff or County Administrator needed to personally respond to every grievance or attend every grievance meeting. This is especially true as both officials oversee large workforces with multiple negotiations units. The PBA acknowledges this but argues that any designee should have settlement authority in the absence of these two officials. However, the allegation in the UPC is that “County management originally agreed with PBA 379's position on these issues but later disagreed.” This level of detail is insufficient to allege surface-bargaining during the grievance process. ¶

Thus, we affirm, the Director’s refusal to issue a Complaint and dismiss the charge. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Director’s refusal to issue a complaint is affirmed. ¶

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/ 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. . . .(5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative. ¶

2/ A self-executing grievance process allows a majority representative to advance a grievance to the next step if the employer does not respond within the negotiated timeframe. ¶

3/ We reject this contention. The charging party had six months from the time the alleged unfair practice occurred to gather evidence and file a UPC. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. Where there are deficiencies, the charging party may amend its charge, a process which the PBA already availed itself of in this case. ¶