P.E.R.C. No. 2026-11, NJ/State (Corrections)

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND YOUTH JUSTICE COMMISSION), Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-174 POLICEMEN’S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 105, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the PBA’s summary judgment motion and grants the State’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The PBA’s charge alleges that the State violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the Act when it did not provide contractual salary increases to three Senior Correctional Police Officers (SCPOs), who were out of work and receiving workers’ compensation, and who could ultimately not return to work, resulting in their accidental disability retirements. The Commission finds there are disputes of fact regarding the calculation of the SCPOs' accidental disability pension. The Commission further finds that the proper forum for resolving that issue is the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits, where the PBA has filed a parallel complaint. ¶

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 STATE OF NEW JERSEY (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND YOUTH JUSTICE COMMISSION), Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-174 POLICEMEN’S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 105, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, ¶

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General ¶

(Gary W. Baldwin, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Charging Party, ¶

Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, LLC, attorneys ¶

(Frank M. Crivelli, Esq., of counsel and on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On July 18 2025, the Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Local 105 (PBA), filed a motion for summary judgment on its May 9, 2024 unfair practice charge (UPC or charge) filed against the State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections and Youth Justice Commission (State). The charge alleges that the State violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4 et seq. (Act), when it did not provide contractual salary increases to three Senior Correctional Police Officers (SCPOs), who were out of work and receiving workers’ compensation. The SCPOs were unable to return to work due to their injuries and are receiving Accidental Disability Retirement Benefits. However, the PBA asserts those disability retirement benefits were wrongfully calculated based on the SCPOs’ pre-injury salaries that did not include the contractual salary increases they should have received while they were out of work on workers’ compensation. The PBA seeks an order compelling the State to retroactively pay the affected SCPOs contractual salary increases and benefits. ¶

On September 5, 2024, the Deputy Director of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint and Notice of Pre-Hearing. The PBA’s charge indicates it has filed a parallel proceeding, based upon the same facts, before the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS); however, no docket numbers have been assigned to the matter.2/ In support of its July 18, 2025 summary judgment motion, the PBA filed a brief with exhibits, the certifications of the three SCPOs, and the certifications of PBA Local 105's President and counsel. On July 25, the State filed a cross- motion for summary judgment supported by a brief, exhibits, and the certification of its counsel. On July 31, the PBA filed a reply letter brief opposing the State’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The following facts appear. ¶

SUMMARY OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ¶

1. The PBA and the State are, respectively, a public employer and public employee representative within the meaning of the Act. PBA Local 105 is the exclusive representative for sworn Correctional Police Officers of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), and Parole Officers of the New Jersey State Parole Board. The PBA and State are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with a term of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027. ¶

2. On April 22, 2022, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) amended the salary guide for SCPOs. As a result, the Step 10 pay for an SCPO assigned to Employee Relations Group “L” became $97,540.28 and $97,538.85 for an SCPO assigned to Employee Relations Group “LA” .3/ On July 2, 2022, SCPOs received their final two percent (2%) negotiated salary increase pursuant to the parties’ 2019-2023 CNA. ¶

3. R.R. began employment with DOC on January 29, 2011. On May 4, 2022, R.R. was assaulted by an inmate while at work and suffered significant injuries, and as a result, received workers’ compensation benefits. On the date of his injury, R.R. was at Step 10 of the Group “L” salary guide, earning an annual salary of $90,315.07. Due to his injuries, R.R. could not perform the duties of an SPCO, and he filed for accidental disability retirement benefits with the PFRS with an effective retirement date of May 1, 2023. On October 16, 2023, R.R.’s accidental disability retirement was approved by PFRS. ¶

4. I.A. began employment with DOC on March 3, 2004. On March 25, 2022, I.A. was severely injured by a motor vehicle while on duty, and as a result, received workers’ compensation benefits. On the date of her injury, I.A. was at Step 10 of the Group “L” salary guide earning an annual salary of $86,808.03. Due to her injuries, I.A. could not perform the duties of an SCPO, and she filed for accidental disability retirement benefits with PFRS with an effective retirement date of February 1, 2023. On August 14, 2023, I.A.’s accidental disability retirement was approved by PFRS. ¶

5. R.H. began employment with JJC on March 22, 2002. On March 25, 2022, I.A. was assaulted by an inmate while at work and suffered significant injuries, and as a result, received workers’ compensation benefits. On the date of his injury, R.H. was at Step 10 of the Group “L” salary guide earning an annual salary of $90,315.07. Due to his injuries, R.H. could not perform the duties of an SCPO, and he filed for accidental disability retirement benefits with PFRS with an effective retirement date of December 1, 2023. On or about February 12, 2024, I.A.’s accidental disability retirement was approved by PFRS. ¶

6. PBA Local 105's President certifies that, “...when an officer is out of work collecting workers’ compensation benefits and the absence falls on his or her anniversary date of employment when they are due to advance a step on the salary guide or receive an increment on the salary guide, the officer receives the increment and his or her pay will increase once their workers' compensation benefits end and they return to work. (See PBA President’s cert. at ¶9. Emphasis added.) ¶

SUMMARY OF MATERIAL DISPUTED FACTS ¶

1. The PBA asserts that, on July 1, 2022, the annual salary for an SCPO on Step 10 of the salary guide increased by 2%, resulting in R.R.’s salary being increased to $99,491.08. The PBA also asserts this was the salary he was earning at the time his Accidental Disability Retirement was approved. The PBA further asserts that his disability retirement benefits were calculated based on a salary of $89,905.88, which is a lower salary than what he was receiving on the date of his injury. The State disputes the PBA’s assertions. The State asserts R.R.’s salary was not increased because he was in “non-pay status” during the period his unpaid leave commenced until his retirement. The State further asserts that R.R.’s salary was correctly certified at $89,905.88, which was the salary in effect when R.R. was injured and when pension contributions ceased. ¶

2. The PBA asserts that, on July 1, 2022, the annual salary for an SCPO on Step 10 of the salary guide increased by 2%, resulting in I.A.’s salary being increased to $99,491.08. The PBA also asserts this was the salary she was earning at the time her Accidental Disability Retirement was approved. The PBA further asserts that her disability retirement benefits were calculated based on a salary of $86,807.55. The State disputes the PBA’s assertions. The State asserts I.A.’s salary was not increased because she was in “non-pay status” during the period her unpaid leave commenced until her retirement. The State further asserts that I.A.’s salary was correctly certified at $86,807.55, which was the salary in effect when I.A. was injured and when pension contributions ceased. ¶

3. The PBA asserts that, on July 1, 2022, the annual salary for a Step 10 Officer was increased by 2%, and R.H.’s salary should have been increased to $99,491.08. The PBA also asserts that, after July 1, 2023, R.H. should have received his final pay raise to $102,973.28 prior to his retirement. The PBA also asserts this was the salary he was or should have been earning at the time his Accidental Disability Retirement was approved. The State disputes the PBA’s assertions. The State asserts R.H.’s salary was not increased because he was in “non- pay status” during the period his unpaid leave commenced until his retirement. The State denies R.H. should have received his final pay raise to $102,973.28 after July 1, 2023. The State asserts that R.H.’s salary was $90,315.13, which was his salary on the date of his injury. ¶

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). ¶

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES ¶

The PBA argues that its summary judgment motion must be granted because the factual record establishes that the State violated Section 5.4a(5) of the Act when it failed to provide R.R., I.A., and R.H. their contractual salary increases while they were receiving workers’ compensation benefits prior to their accidental disability retirement. The PBA argues that due to the officers not receiving their contractual salary increases the final salaries that the State reported to PFRS to calculate their retirement benefits were incorrect. The PBA asserts that the final salaries that should have been used to calculate their retirement benefit was the higher salary, including all contractual increments, at the time they retired. The PBA further argues that PBA members do not forfeit contractual benefits, such as salary increments, seniority, leave time, or healthcare benefits, when they are out injured receiving workers’ compensation. The PBA maintains that all of these benefits are restored when the member returns to work. The PBA argues that the affected SCPOs were active employees carried upon the State’s payroll while they were out on workers’ compensation, and thus, should have received their contractual salary increases. The PBA maintains that there is no statutory preemption in this matter. ¶

The State argues its cross-motion for summary judgment should be granted and the PBA’s charge dismissed due to the Commission’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The State asserts the proper forum is the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits (DPB) and the Board of Trustees of PFRS. The State maintains it certified the SCPOs’ salaries correctly based on the salary at the time of their injury and cessation of pension contributions. The State contends that the DPB has exclusive jurisdiction over pension appeals and remedies and that our Act prohibits contravention of any pension statutes. The State notes that the PBA has filed parallel proceedings before PFRS and any Commission decision could undermine or contradict the ruling of PFRS. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

Public employers are prohibited from “[r]efusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(5). Public employers are also 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). ¶

The legal question before us is whether the State properly calculated the SCPOs’ final salaries, including any effect of negotiated salary increases, for the determination of the amount of their accidental disability pension benefit. N.J.S.A. 43:16A- 7(a)(2), a PFRS pension statute, controls the calculation of an accidental disability pension benefit. It provides, in pertinent part: ¶

Upon retirement for accidental disability, a member shall receive an accidental disability retirement allowance which shall consist of: ¶

(a) An annuity which shall be the actuarial equivalent of his aggregate contributions; and ¶

(b) A pension in the amount which, when added to the member’s annuity, will provide a total retirement allowance of 2/3 of the member’s actual annual compensation for which contributions were being made at the time of the occurrence of the accident or at the time of the member’s retirement, whichever provides the largest possible benefit to the member. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

Further, PFRS regulation, N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.9(b), sets forth how to calculate final compensation for retirement benefits. That regulation provides that “the months or pay periods for which no contributions were made shall not be used in the calculation.” ¶

Here, the record establishes that there are significant disputes of material fact regarding the salary of the affected SCPOs at the time of their retirement and whether pension contributions were being made during the period they were receiving workers’ compensation benefits. To determine the proper calculation of the SCPOs’ accidental disability pension, the SCPOs’ “actual annual compensation for which contributions were being made” must be established. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(a)(2). I.A.’s last “pension deduction” was made in pay period “#7-2021” , which corresponds to her injury date, and she was on “leave of absence” and “unpaid leave” from 3/25/2021 (the injury date) to 1/31/2023 (her retirement date). See Exhibit E of State’s brief. R.H.’s last “pension deduction” was made in pay period “#2-2022” , which corresponds to his injury date, and he was on “leave of absence” and “unpaid leave” from 1/14/2022 (the injury date) to 11/30/2023 (her retirement date). Ibid.4/ ¶

However, even if the record before us resolved these disputed issues of material facts, the Act, at N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 8.1, provides, in pertinent part, “[n]othing in [the Act] shall be construed to annul or modify... any pension statute....” In construing the negotiability of pension issues, the New Jersey Supreme Court stated, “[t]he Legislature has determined that the entire subject matter of public employee pensions is to be insulated from negotiated agreement which would contravene or supplement its comprehensive regulation of that area. Public employees and employee representatives may neither negotiate nor agree upon any proposal which would affect the sacrosanct subject of employee pensions.” State v. State Supervisory Emps. Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54, 83 (1978). ¶

Thus, the proper forum for resolving the calculation of the SCPOs’ accidental disability pension amount is the DPB, where this dispute is also pending. The DPB is assigned “all administrative functions of the State pension funds, except for the investment of the assets retained in the Division of Investment.” See N.J.A.C. 17:1-1.1(b); see also Devan v. Bd. of Trs. (App. Div. 2023) (holding that the DPB properly calculated the final salary of an injured juvenile detention officer receiving workers’ compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15A-46(b), finding that “any attempt by DeVan to include salary increases, negotiated for the time after the date of his injury, are not permitted under N.J.S.A. 43:15A-46(b).” )5/ ¶

For all the foregoing reasons, we deny the PBA’s summary judgment motion. The State’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted, and we dismiss the charge without prejudice. The PBA may refile its charge if any issues implicating our Act remain and are not mooted by the pending PFRS decision. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The PBA’s summary judgment motion is denied. The State’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. The PBA’s charge is dismissed, without prejudice. ¶

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: October 23, 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 employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶

2/ The parties have not filed a motion for consolidation and a determination of predominant interest to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions from the PFRS and PERC. ¶

3/ SCPOs currently employed by the DOC and the JJC are now assigned only to Employee Relations Group “L” as the “LA” Employee Relations Group was eliminated in the parties’ current CNA. ¶

4/ However, R.R.’s certification of final salary indicates his last “pension deduction” was made in pay period #10-2023, which corresponds to his retirement date of 5/1/2023. His certification does not indicate he was “leave of absence” or “unpaid leave” . This discrepancy is not explained in the factual record, putting these facts into further dispute. ¶

5/ While there are no court decisions interpreting the PFRS statute, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(a)(2), Devan, supra, interpreted and provided guidance on the analogous provision in the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) statute, N.J.S.A. 43:15A-46(b) that provides, “A pension, in the amount which, when added to the member’s annuity, will provide a total retirement allowance of 72.7% of his actual annual compensation for which contributions were being made at the time of the occurrence of the accident.” ¶