P.E.R.C. No. 2025-48, Paterson

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF PATERSON, Appellant, -and- Docket No. IA-2025-009 PATERSON FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission remands an interest arbitration award setting new terms and conditions of employment between the City of Paterson and Paterson Firefighters Association. The City claims that the arbitrator did not: calculate the net economic cost of the award per year, adequately explain its analysis of the statutory criteria for economic issues, give due weight to the City’s receipt of transitional aid, adequately explain his finding of an internal settlement pattern and, did not grant the City’s proposal to eliminate the computation of “City Time” when placing an employee on the salary guide. The Commission remands the award to the arbitrator for calculation of the yearly net economic cost once the City provides sufficient information for the arbitrator to do so. Additionally, the arbitrator shall supplement his analysis of the statutory criteria where necessary. The Commission denies the remaining issues raised by the City. ¶

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 CITY OF PATERSON, Appellant, -and- Docket No. IA-2025-009 PATERSON FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Appellant, PRB, Attorneys at Law, attorneys (Susie B. Burns, of counsel). ¶

For the Respondent, Trenk, Isabel, Siddiqi & Shahdanian, P.C., attorneys (John L. Shahdanian II, of counsel) ¶

AMENDED DECISION ¶

On April 29, 2025, the City of Paterson (City) appealed the April 11 interest arbitration award (Award) covering firefighters represented by Paterson Firefighters Association Local 2 (Association). The Association is the exclusive and majority representative for firefighters employed by the City of Paterson. (Award at 26). The Association and City are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with an effective date from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2019, which was extended as modified by a memorandum of understanding expiring on December 31, 2023. (Award at 2). ¶

On December 10, 2024, the Association filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(b)(2) to resolve an impasse over the terms of a successor CNA. The interest arbitrator conducted a pre-interest arbitration mediation session on February 10, 2025, at which a voluntary settlement could not be reached. (Award at 2). Following the parties’ transmittal of final offers and their submission of certifications and exhibits, the arbitrator conducted a hearing on February 12 and 28. (Award at 3). The parties filed simultaneous briefs on March 21. (Award at 3). The arbitrator issued a 52-page conventional award setting the terms of a 4-year successor CNA effective from January 1, 2024 to December 30, 2027. (Award at 51-52). ¶

The Award contains a statement of the arbitrator’s authority and the relevant statutory factors the law requires him to consider, along with a factual background, final offers of both parties, their respective positions, and a discussion section justifying the Award. The arbitrator made findings on four predominant issues in dispute and awarded the following: ¶

1. Term of the agreement: four-year agreement from January 1, 2024- December 31, 2027; ¶

2. Annual salary increases of 2% per year, retroactive to January 1, 2024, along with step movement across the salary guide for each year; ¶

3. No change to the “City Time” provision, which considers time worked for the City in any capacity in placing an employee on the salary guide; ¶

4. No change to Medicare Part B1/ retirement coverage, which pays the Medicare recipient’s share of coverage. ¶

(Award at 41-51). ¶

The remaining issues in dispute were denied and dismissed. (Award at 51). ¶

This appeal ensued. The City filed a brief in support of its appeal, together with copies of the entire record submitted to the arbitrator, the transcripts of the arbitration hearing, and supplemental appendix. The Association filed a brief in opposition. ¶

Upon review of the Award, the record and the parties’ submissions, and as further explained infra, we remand the matter to the arbitrator for calculation of the net economic effect of the Award, as is required to by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d. In supporting this calculation, the arbitrator shall amend his analysis of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g factors. The remaining issues on appeal are denied and dismissed. ¶

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 Borough of Lodi, 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). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g) sets forth the nine applicable statutory criteria as follows: ¶

g. The arbitrator shall decide the dispute based on a reasonable determination of the issues, giving due weight to those factors listed below that are judged relevant for the resolution of the specific dispute. In the award, the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall indicate which of the factors are deemed relevant, satisfactorily explain why the others are not relevant, and provide an analysis of the evidence on each relevant factor; provided, however, that in every interest arbitration proceeding, the parties shall introduce evidence regarding the factor set forth in paragraph (6) of this subsection and the arbitrator shall analyze and consider the factor set forth in paragraph (6) of this subsection in any award: ¶

(1) The interests and welfare of the public. ¶

Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by P.L.1976, c.68 (C.40A:4-45.1 et seq.). ¶

(2) Comparison of the wages, salaries, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing the same or similar services and with other employees generally: ¶

(a) In private employment in general; provided, however, each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(b) In public employment in general; provided, however, each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(c) In public employment in the same or similar comparable jurisdictions, as determined in accordance with section 5 of P.L.1995, c.425 (C.34:13A-16.2); ¶

provided, however, that each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence concerning the comparability of jurisdictions for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(3) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, inclusive of direct wages, salary, vacations, holidays, excused leaves, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, and all other economic benefits received. ¶

(4) Stipulations of the parties. ¶

(5) The lawful authority of the employer. Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by P.L.1976, c.68 (C.40A:4-45.1 et seq.). ¶

(6) The financial impact on the governing unit, its residents, the limitations imposed upon the local unit’s property tax levy pursuant to section 10 of P.L.2007, c.62 (C.40A:4-45.45), and taxpayers. When considering this factor in a dispute in which the public employer is a county or a municipality, the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall take into account, to the extent that evidence is introduced, how the award will affect the municipal or county purposes element, as the case may be, of the local property tax; a comparison of the percentage of the municipal purposes element or, in the case of a county, the county purposes element, required to fund the employees’ contract in the preceding local budget year with that required under the award for the current local budget year; the impact of the award for each income sector of the property taxpayers of the local unit; the impact of the award on the ability of the governing body to (a) maintain existing local programs and services, (b) expand existing local programs and services for which public moneys have been designated by the governing body in a proposed local budget, or (c) initiate any new programs and services for which public moneys have been designated by the governing body in a proposed local budget. ¶

(7) The cost of living. ¶

(8) The continuity and stability of employment including seniority rights and such other factors not confined to the foregoing which are ordinarily or traditionally considered in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment through collective negotiations and collective bargaining between the parties in the public service and in private employment. ¶

(9) Statutory restrictions imposed on the employer. Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by section 10 of P.L.2007, c.62 (C.40A:4-45.45). ¶

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ¶

The City alleges that the arbitrator did not adequately explain which statutory factors listed in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g were relevant and why others were not relevant, including the continuity and stability of employment resulting from the Award. (City Br. Points I, V, VI). It further argues that the arbitrator did not determine or analyze the total net economic changes for each year of the contract as required by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d. (City Br. Point II). The City also contends that the arbitrator erred when he did not credit the City’s testimony that it was subject to “total fiscal domination” by the DCA because no witness from the DCA testified. (City Br. Point III). It also avers that the arbitrator’s analysis of the internal pattern of wage increases for other employees of the City was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to explain whether an internal pattern existed, the nature of the settlement pattern, and an analysis of the parties’ respective positions on the internal comparables. (City Br. Point IV). ¶

In response, the Association argues that the arbitrator adequately explained the statutory factors in his Award, properly considered net economic change to the City, and that there is no evidence in the record that the City would be forced to lay off employees if 2% per year salary increases were provided to its members. ¶

ANNUAL INCREASES ¶

The arbitrator made the following findings in justifying his decision on salary increases: ¶

In this case, the City is in the unique position of being a New Jersey municipality of first class that receives [transitional aid (TA)] via N.J.S.A. 52:27D-118.27. As a recipient of TA, the City is under State oversight. This oversight is enumerated in the MOU between the State and the City. The City has characterized the MOU as “total fiscal domination,” despite the wording in the MOU as establishing a partnership and collaboration. ¶

This statutory restriction carries a great deal of weight and must be respected. The City’s fiscal position poses difficult decisions for how the City appropriates its money. The [Department of Community Affairs (DCA)] is there to guide those decisions. However, it does not step in and make the City’s decisions. ¶

The DCA can participate in any negotiations undertaken by the City. Ms. Long, the City’s former Business Administrator (BA), testified that the BA meets with the DCA at the beginning of negotiations and provides updates during the process. The participation of the DCA is oversight. It provides parameters. For instance, the approval of a CNA increase of more than 2% requires the cost analysis and reporting as listed on pg 16, section T (5). This does not prevent the City from providing 2%. It also does not rule out more than 2%, if provided the appropriate information. The 2% indicates increases can happen but exceeding that cap would require thorough review due to a possible negative financial impact. ¶

According to the MOU, a document titled “Notification of Transitional Impact” is to be submitted to the collective bargaining units upon negotiation. Furthermore, if a collective negotiation is submitted to binding arbitration, the City must deliver to the arbitrator and the DGLS such notification. The City in its arguments claims the DGLS has a tight hold on the City. As an example, Ms. Long speaks of the City not being allowed to pay and provide for food at City cultural or celebratory events. If the DGLS has such a tight grip on finances, a Notification of Transitional Impact would have been submitted for a clearer understanding of the financial impact on the City. ¶

Furthermore, if the City wanted to illustrate the constraints placed by the State, it would have been beneficial to receive the testimony of the fiscal monitor. Without hearing directly from a representative of the State, I am left with the City’s characterization of its oversight. The language of the MOU reflects guidance and not a mandate. It refers to substantial compliance not absolute compliance. The City has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its proposal of a 0% annual increase. ¶

To support the Association’s final offer of 3.5% increase, Mr. Richard Corcoran, CPA was retained and called to testify. In his analysis, he identified three areas the City could draw from to afford the 3.5% annual increase: the City’s fund balance, breakage and the revenue generated by the Association’s EMS/EMT services. Whether or not these areas of revenue could enable the City to afford a 3.5% annual increase, the analysis does not address whether the DCA would approve a percentage above 2%. ¶

The Association contends that its members would fall behind in salary due to inflation, rising housing and healthcare costs. To illustrate this point, the Association uses external comparisons. The Association submits that the Paterson Fire Department is comparable to Bayonne, Camden, Elizabeth, Clifton, North Hudson, Jersey City, Newark, Passaic, Montclair, Trenton and Atlantic City. ¶

* * * ¶

While I appreciate the Association’s due diligence in proffering eleven (11) municipalities to be able to compare the amount of steps per salary grid, base of pay, and population, none of the municipalities are of first class (a population over 150,000) and a recipient of TA. Newark and Jersey City are of first class, however neither receive TA. Atlantic City and Camden receive TA, but their respective populations are considerably smaller than the City’s. Also Atlantic City does not provide a good measure, because its sources of revenue markedly differ from the City's. It is also unclear whether the external comparable fire departments aid surrounding municipalities. The City’s aid to its neighbors is wide in scope. Lastly, the majority of municipalities fail to compare because its fire departments do not provide EMS/EMT services. None of the municipalities presented qualify as an apples to apples comparison. ¶

The external comparables do not convince me nor support a 3.5% annual increase. However, a pattern emerges when reviewing internal comparables. In the recent PBA settlement, the members received an annual increases of 2% over the term of the agreement. (U2) The DPW received over 2% annual increases (2.5% for the first 3 years of the agreement and 3.0% in the last year). Both of these agreements were approved by the DCA. I find the internal comparables compelling and give them substantial weight. ¶

Based on the entirety of the record of this proceeding, neither final offers of the parties present a reasonable determination of the salary issues in dispute. Based on the 2% increase budgeted by the City and the internal comparables of the PBA and DPW settlements, I award a 2% annual increase effective January 1 of each year for the term of the Agreement retroactive to January 1, 2024. Additionally, there shall be step movement in all four (4) years pursuant to the existing procedures. ¶

(Award at 42-46). ¶

A. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d Net Annual Economic Change Analysis ¶

Any interest arbitration award must “determine whether the total net annual economic changes for each year of the agreement are reasonable under the nine statutory criteria.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d. The requirement that an interest arbitrator include a net cost-out of increases to base salary items for each year of the award, including items such as salary increments and longevity pay, remains mandatory for all interest arbitration awards, even though the “2% hard cap” provision of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7 is expired for new contracts. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d; N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9c2/; see Passaic Cty. Sheriff, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-34, 47 NJPER 397 (¶94 2021); and Mercer Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-28, 47 NJPER 331 (¶79 2021). ¶

Here, the Award does not contain a detailed cost-out of the net annual economic changes of the award. While required in all interest arbitration awards, we find that this calculation is particularly important where the award may exceed the 2% increase in base wages which the City could not voluntarily agree without DCA approval.3/ We remand the Award for the arbitrator to calculate total net economic change for each year of the agreement. We further order the City to provide a complete scattergram of employees as of December 31, 2022, the last day of the expired CNA, a necessity for the arbitrator to complete this calculation. ¶

B. Analysis of the Relevant N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g Factors ¶

The net economic change calculation is explicitly informed by the arbitrator’s consideration of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g) criteria. The Award is clear that in granting 2% annual increase with salary step movement to the Association, the arbitrator noted that “all of the [N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g] criteria may be relevant and will be considered, not all are entitled to equal weight.” (Award at 41). The arbitrator then explained that he determined sections 16g(1), (5) and (9) were the most important factors. (Award at 42). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g requires that “[i]n the award, the arbitrator … shall indicate which of the factors are deemed relevant, satisfactorily explain why the others are not relevant, and provide an analysis of the evidence on each relevant factor.” The Award is clear that the arbitrator satisfied the first two conditions because he determined that each factor was relevant. (Award at 41). ¶

Only where “it is difficult to assess what factors the arbitrator weighed most heavily and how he weighed and balanced the other factors,” must the Commission remand an award to the arbitrator to “explain how [the Award] was shaped and supported by the statutory criteria.” Union Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2003-33, 28 NJPER 459 (¶33 2002); see also Milltown Boro., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-33, 38 NJPER 260 (¶89 2011). The City’s contention that each of the criteria should be labeled and discussed is not required by the statute even if it may be a best practice. ¶

Here, most factors are named and discussed, as listed above. Other factors, such as 16g(2)4/ and (3),5/ are discussed by implication because the Award provides analysis on those specific points. (Award at 44-46). Factor 16g(6) is implicitly discussed as part of the arbitrator’s findings related to DCA involvement in the City’s finances and its receipt of transitional aid. (Award at 26-28; 42-43). Other factors, such as the cost of living (16g(7)) and the continuity and stability of employment (16g(8)) are not directly discussed. ¶

While we decline to disturb the arbitrator’s findings on 16(g), the arbitrator shall amend his analysis of the statutory factors as necessary, by further elaborating on the documentary evidence and testimony he relied on in fashioning the financial aspects of the Award. ¶

C. The arbitrator gave due weight to the financial limitations placed on the City for receiving transitional aid. ¶

The City’s appeal that the arbitrator did not provide due weight to DCA oversight of the City and that he did not credit testimony by the City as to the DCA’s “fiscal domination” is denied. The arbitrator made specific and detailed findings on this point and weighed relevant testimony and exhibits in coming to the conclusion that annual raises of 2% were appropriate. ¶

The arbitrator found the receipt of transitional aid and DCA oversight via N.J.S.A. 52:27D-118.42a was a “statutory restriction [that] carries a great deal of weight and must be respected.” (Award at 42-44). However, the arbitrator, in analyzing the statutory requirements, the MOU between the DCA and the City, along with the testimony, found that the relationship between the DCA and the City was one of “oversight” and “partnership,” not one of complete fiscal domination. (Award at 42). The record evidence reasonably supports the arbitrator’s treatment of DCA oversight and was appropriate. ¶

The Business Administrator for the City “testified that she would meet with a representative from the DCA at the beginning of negotiations and provided updates during the process.” (Award at 43; Tr. 1, 120-21). The arbitrator also considered the MOU with DCA, which explicitly allows the City to increase annual compensation by 2% per year without special approval. City’s Ex. 3, p. 16. These facts, along with additional language in the MOU that requires “substantial” compliance with the MOU in order to guarantee transitional aid funding, and this mission statement of the transitional aid program which is to “establish a partnership with each recipient municipality” support the arbitrator’s findings. (Ibid.) The arbitrator was within his authority, after weighing this evidence, to find that the City’s characterization of DCA oversight was not entirely credible, especially in light of the City’s decision to not call a DCA representative as a witness.6/ For this reason, we decline to disturb the arbitrator’s analysis as it relates to DCA oversight. ¶

CITY TIME ¶

The City also appeals the arbitrator’s denial of its proposal to eliminate seniority with the City, in addition to seniority with the Fire Department, in an individual’s placement on the salary grid. The arbitrator found that the City failed to meet its burden in proving the removal of the provision should be awarded. We affirm. ¶

In declining to award “city time,” the arbitrator made the following findings: ¶

In its final offer, the City submitted a proposal to eliminate credit for years worked in a non-firefighting capacity for new hires. In the 2022 MOU, the Association agreed to forgo longevity, but worked with the City to include it in the salary grid. During this process, the parties found a reduction in some members’ salaries. To reconcile, city time was considered in the placement of members on the salary grid. They were placed on the salary grid based on time they worked for the City which included positions other than firefighter. Now the City wants specifically to delete the language “their time from the city.” If not removed, the City urges to at least bargain for the issue. The language regarding “city time” is addressed in 2022 MOU Article V: ¶

Reference attached salary grid demonstrating overall maximum compensation structure. Salary Grid to go into effect upon ratification of CNA. All employees will be placed on the Salary Grid based on their time with the City and longevity, with any resultant increase in cost to the City based on time accrued with the City but not accrued as a firefighter, being deducted front the retro payment set forth below. (U2) ¶

The City argues to modify Article V language because it has not captured the intent of the parties. (T2 107:3-25, 110:1-10) The Association argues to retain the language. To remove the “city time” would be stripping away a benefit. ¶

* * * ¶

The City contends the city time language was not to provide a windfall for members of the Association. The provision was not for members to leapfrog in salary over more senior firefighters. I find no windfall. The intention of both parties was to create a salary grid that fairly and justly included longevity and city time. Based on the adjustments required to correctly place some Association members on the salary grid, the City claims the city time language in the 2022 MOU does not capture the negotiated intent. Moreover, the City asserts the Association concedes this point. (T2 107:1- 25) ¶

It was established during the hearing on February 28, 2025 that the issue at hand is not whether the provision was implemented correctly, but rather whether or not there should be a change in the provision. The party proposing the change in the employment condition bears the burden of justifying that proposed change, rather than simply seeking change without sufficient evidentiary support. As the Interest Arbitrator, I am to determine whether the City has met its burden of proof to have city time eliminated from the contract. (T2 112:15-19) ¶

While there may be members of the Association whose placement on the salary grid needed correction, there is no evidence provided to show that the language regarding city time should be eliminated. The intent is clear and the definition of city time is clear. According to Captain Petrelli, the City wrote the language for Article V. (T2 114 10-21) Moreover, the DCA approved this language in the 2022 MOU. ¶

With that said, it is my understanding the city time in Article V was designed to address the inequities of building longevity into the salary grid. It may not have achieved its desired effect. If city time is removed for new hires to be placed on the salary grid, the financial impact is not clear nor is it presented. ¶

I find the City has not met its burden of proof to change the status quo. As a result, the language regarding city time shall remain and there should be no change in the status quo. ¶

(Award at 47-49). ¶

The City argues that it met its burden of proof in establishing that the “city time” provision should be removed from the CNA because it provides a benefit to the negotiations unit that was not anticipated by either the City or Association. The City claims that it proved by a preponderance of the evidence that continuation of “city time” was a windfall to the Association and was never intended to have the effect it possess in its current form. (City Br. Point VII). ¶

In opposition, the Association contends that the “city time” language was proposed by the City itself on the day the MOU was signed and argues it is an important benefit to the negotiations unit that other City employees also have. Additionally, the Association argues that the preponderance of the evidence standard cited by the City is inapplicable as those cases involved a grievance arbitration. ¶

In an interest arbitration, the “traditional arbitration principle [is] that a party proposing a change must justify it.” Union Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2003-33, 28 NJPER 459 (¶33 2002). See Teaneck, 25 NJPER 199 (¶30 2000) (non-economic change to CNA must be justified by party making the proposal). ¶

We affirm this aspect of the Award because it is supported by the evidence as weighed by the arbitrator. He carefully reviewed the contractual language at issue and determined that its meaning and effect were both clear. (Award at 49). The arbitrator also considered that the recency of the “city time” language’s inclusion and the fact that it was written by the City weighed against the City’s position that it be excised from the CNA. (Award at 47-49). Thus, this aspect of the award is supported by the credible evidence in the record and the appeal is denied. ¶

In summary, we remand the Award to the arbitrator to complete an annual net economic change calculation. We note that the record presented to the arbitrator by the City was insufficient, which hindered his ability to provide a detailed analysis of the Award costs. The arbitrator shall amend his discussion of the statutory factors supporting that economic change as he deems necessary. We affirm the Award as to the arbitrator’s findings on the role of the DCA and transitional aid, and as to his findings on City Time. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Award is remanded to the arbitrator. The City shall provide the arbitrator with a legible scattergram of the negotiations unit as of December 31, 2023 within 7-days of this amended decision. The arbitrator shall issue a Remand Award consistent with this decision within 30-days of receipt of the scattergram. Parties may file responsive briefs within fourteen days of the Remand Award. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: June 26, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ The Award refers to this provision as Medicare “Plan” B. ¶

2/ 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. ¶

3/ Without specific calculations, the record shows that a 2% annual increase to salary, along with step movement on the salary guide, may increase average base salary beyond 2% for those employees in the steps. It is unknown on this record what the annual cost will be for the unit. As discussed infra, the City’s agreement with DCA to receive transitional aid requires that “any collective negotiation agreement that increases annual compensation for the employee or group of employees by more than 2% annually, on average, during the term of the agreement, the Municipality may become ineligible for future aid” unless DCA approves a higher amount. City Ex. C, p. 16-17. A complete scattergram of the negotiations unit, which was provided to the arbitrator in an untimely manner by the City, is necessary to complete this calculation. ¶

4/ This factor requires “[c]omparison of the wages, salaries, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing the same or similar services and with other employees generally,” which the arbitrator took into account when reviewing external and internal comparables. ¶

5/ This factor requires consideration of “[t]he overall compensation presently received by the employees, inclusive of direct wages, salary, vacations, holidays, excused leaves, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, and all other economic benefits received,” which the arbitrator considered. ¶

6/ We reject the notion that the arbitrator should have sua sponte subpoenaed officials from DCA to testify for the purposes of bolstering the City’s case. The City could have requested the appropriate DCA official to testify, or a subpoena from the arbitrator if informal methods were not successful. ¶