P.E.R.C. No. 2025-9, Chester Tp B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CHESTER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-001 CHESTER TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the Board's request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Association's grievance. The grievance asserts that the Board violated the parties’ collective negotiation’s agreement when it denied tuition reimbursement for the grievant’s Master’s degree course. The Commission finds the grievance is preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 and not legally arbitrable. ¶

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 CHESTER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-001 CHESTER TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Machado Law Group, attorneys (Danielle A. Panizzi, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Oxfeld Cohen, P.C., attorneys (Randi Doner April, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On July 5, 2024, the Chester County Board of Education (Board) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Chester Township Education Association (Association). The grievance asserts that the Board violated Article VI, Section 1 of the parties’ collective negotiation’s agreement (CNA) when it denied tuition reimbursement for the Grievant’s Master’s degree course, “Differentiated Supervision.” The Board contends that arbitration of the grievance is preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5. ¶

The Board filed briefs, exhibits and the certification of its Superintendent. The Association filed a brief.1/ These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents all teachers, librarians and nurses, guidance, secretary, and child study team personnel, and all other persons certified by the State of New Jersey not included in supervisory activities whether under contract or on leave, but excluding custodial, cafeteria, and all confidential secretarial/clerical personnel, the Superintendent’s secretary, Business Administrator’s secretary, Payroll and Accounts Payable personnel, and all other personnel not specifically included in the CNA’s recognition clause. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA with a term of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2026. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Section 1, Article VI of the parties’ CNA, “Professional Development and Education Improvement,” provides in relevant part: ¶

Teachers electing to pursue a Masters Degree shall receive approval from the Superintendent for their program. ¶

For tenured teachers and non-tenured teachers the following will apply: ¶

1. The Board will give assistance in the payment of tuition fees for up to 34 credits per teacher for courses successfully completed with a grade of “B” or the equivalent and approved by the Superintendent prior to enrollment. Teachers must be enrolled at a duly authorized institution of higher education as defined by N.J.S.A. 18A:3-15.3 in a course or degree related to the teacher’s current or future job responsibilities. All tuition reimbursement must be in accordance with State law. ¶

The Superintendent certifies to the following facts. The Grievant is a certified teacher who has been employed in the District at all times relevant to this matter. On October 10, 2023, the Grievant submitted a Tuition Reimbursement Application to her office seeking approval for two courses at Montclair State University towards a Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership. Specifically, the Grievant sought reimbursement for the two courses: 1. “Differentiated Supervision,” and 2. “Leading Curriculum Change for Student Achievement.” ¶

By email dated October 17, 2023, the Superintendent denied the reimbursement request for the “Differentiated Supervision” course and approved the request for “Leading Curriculum Change for Student Achievement” course. The email stated, in pertinent part: ¶

Your request for the course “Differentiated Supervision” was denied according to the CEA contract guidelines stating that a course must be taken that is “related to” the employees current or future job responsibilities.” ¶

On January 29, 2024, the Association filed a grievance stating, in pertinent part: ¶

The CEA believes that graduate courses focused on educational administration should be granted tuition reimbursement on the basis that the coursework is related to "current or future job responsibilities” . The CEA believes that it is plausible for a teacher to later become an administrator within the district and as such, courses related to such responsibilities should be reimbursed based on Article VI Section 1 of the contract. ¶

On February 12, 2024, the Superintendent denied the grievance on the basis that the course did not apply to the Grievant’s current or future job responsibilities. The Superintendent certifies that the District has never reimbursed teaching staff members in administrative graduate courses in the last seventeen years of her tenure. The Board considered the next level of the grievance at its April 25 meeting, and denied it by letter dated May 8. On May 15, the Association filed a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators. This petition ensued. ¶

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

Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), articulates the standards for determining whether a subject is mandatorily negotiable: ¶

[A] subject is negotiable between public employers and employees when (1) the item intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To decide whether a negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy, it is necessary to balance the interests of the public employees and the public employer. When the dominant concern is the government’s managerial prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees’ working conditions. ¶

[Id. at 404-405]. ¶

Where a statute or regulation is alleged to preempt an otherwise negotiable term or condition of employment, it must do so expressly, specifically and comprehensively. Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bethlehem Tp. Ed. Ass’n, 91 N.J. 38, 44-45 (1982). The legislative provision must “speak in the imperative and leave nothing to the discretion of the public employer.” State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54, 80-82 (1978). We must balance the parties’ interests in light of the particular facts and arguments presented. City of Jersey City v. Jersey City POBA, 154 N.J. 555, 574-575 (1998). ¶

N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 provides, in pertinent part: ¶

Requirements for receipt of employee tuition assistance, additional compensation ¶

In order for a board of education to provide to an employee tuition assistance for course work taken at an institution of higher education or additional compensation upon the acquisition of additional academic credits or completion of a degree program at an institution of higher education: ¶

a. The institution shall be a duly authorized institution of higher education as defined in section 3 of P.L.1986, c.87 (C.18A:3-15.3); ¶

b. The employee shall obtain approval from the superintendent of schools prior to enrollment in any course for which tuition assistance is sought. In the event that the superintendent denies the approval, the employee may appeal the denial to the board of education; and ¶

* * * c. The tuition assistance or additional compensation shall be provided only for a course or degree related to the employee’s current or future job responsibilities. ¶

The Board argues that the Association’s grievance is statutorily preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5(c). Relying on Hillsborough Tp. Bd. of Ed. and Hillsborough Tp. Ed. Ass’n (2017), aff’ g, P.E.R.C. NO. 2016-64, 42 NJPER 475 (¶130 2016), the Board argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:6- 8.5(c) sets an express, specific, and comprehensive condition for tuition reimbursement. Namely, in order for the Board to provide tuition assistance it shall be provided only for a course or degree related to the employee’s current or future job responsibilities. The Board asserts that the Superintendent, pursuant to the statute, made the determination that the Grievant’s “Differentiated Supervision” course did not qualify for tuition reimbursement because it did not relate to the Grievant’s current or future job responsibilities. In its reply brief, the Board adds that any challenges to the Superintendent’s denial should have been raised in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education. ¶

The Association argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 does not preempt its grievance. The Association cites various arbitration decisions, issued prior to the Appellate Division’s 2017 decision in Hillsborough, that interpreted N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 in favor of tuition reimbursement for the respective grievants. The Association argues that the Superintendent’s reason for denying the tuition reimbursement, namely because the teacher may leave for a position at another school district, could be the basis for the denial of all future tuition reimbursements, which would undermine the intent of the statute. ¶

N.J.S.A. 18A-6:8.5 preempts grievances challenging a superintendent’s denial of tuition reimbursement requests. See Somerset Hills Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-49, 50 NJPER 1 (¶1 2023)(restraining arbitration of a grievance to the extent that the grievance challenged the superintendent’s denial of tuition reimbursement for a second masters degree because that issue is preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5); see also, Sterling Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2017-75, 44 NJPER 36 (¶11 2017; Hillsborough Tp. Bd. of Ed., supra; Hainesport Tp. Bd. of Ed. P.E.R.C. No. 2015-41, 41 NJPER 274 (¶92 2014). Compare Monmouth County Vocational Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2018-49, 44 NJPER 458 (¶127 2018)(finding that N.J.S.A. 18A-6:8.5 does not preempt grievances claiming that the grievant was entitled to additional compensation for completed graduate coursework); Hackensack Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2016-20, 42 NJPER 192 (¶51 2015)(finding that appropriate placement on a salary guide after completion of graduate courses is not preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5); Parsippany-Troy Hills Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-93, 41 NJPER 66 (¶20 2014); Kingwood Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-34, 40 NJPER 260 (¶100 2013). ¶

Accordingly, we find the grievance challenging the Superintendent’s denial of tuition reimbursement for the Grievant’s “Differentiated Supervision” course is preempted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 and not legally arbitrable. The Association’s reliance on the arbitration decisions cited in its brief is misplaced. Arbitration decisions are not binding precedent. However, even if we were to consider those decisions, they were issued prior to the Appellate Division’s 2017 decision in Hillsborough and the Commission precedent following that decision. We note that while a superintendent’s denial of a tuition reimbursement request is not legally arbitrable, it is statutorily appealable to the Board and the Board’s decision is appealable to the Commissioner of Education. Hillsborough Tp. Bd. of Ed., supra. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

Chester Township Board of Education’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration is granted. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Kushnir and Papero voted in favor of the decision. None opposed. Commissioner Ford recused himself. Commissioners Eaton and Higgins were not present. ¶

ISSUED: September 26, 2024 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ The Association did not file a certification. N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(f) requires that all pertinent facts be supported by certifications based upon personal knowledge. ¶