P.E.R.C. No. 2026-13, Sayreville BE

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of SAYREVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-010 NJEA REGIONAL OFFICE 11/12, Respondent, -and- ELENA MAKARETS, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms a dismissal letter by the Director of Unfair Practices of an unfair practice charge filed by Makarets against the Sayreville Board of Education (Board) and the NJEA Regional Office 11/12 (NJEA). The charge alleges that since 2022 Makarets has been on the wrong step on the salary guide, violating N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1), (2), (3) and (5)and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) and (2). The Commission finds that the Director properly dismissed the claims because Makarets does not have standing to bring the N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(2), (5) and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(2) claims. Additionally, Makarets did not provide adequate support or explanation of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (3) and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) claims. This defect was not cured either when she filed the amendment to her charge or in the documents she filed in support of her appeal. Makarets may continue to pursue her claim internally with the Board and the NJEA or in another forum. ¶

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 SAYREVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-010 NJEA REGIONAL OFFICE 11/12, Respondent, -and- ELENA MAKARETS, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Sayreville Board of Education (Edward Aguiles, Director of Human Resources) ¶

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

For the Charging Party, Elena Makarets, Pro Se ¶

DECISION ¶

On October 6, 2025, Elena Makarets, a school nurse, filed an appeal of a dismissal letter by the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) of an unfair practice charge filed by Makarets against the Sayreville Board of Education (Board) and the NJEA Regional Office 11/12 (NJEA). The charge alleges that since 2022 Makarets has been on the wrong step on the salary guide, violating N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1), (2), (3) and (5)1/ and N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4b(1) and (2)2/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-34-1 et seq. ¶

Neither respondent filed a response to the appeal. ¶

On September 29, 2025, the Director provided Makarets with written notice of dismissal of part of her charge and defects in other parts of the charge. He dismissed the N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(2) and (5) claims because only majority representatives, and not individuals, have standing to pursue such claims. A public employer only has a duty to negotiate with a majority representative, not a public employee. See New Jersey Turnpike Auth. (App. Div. 1981), aff’ g, P.E.R.C. No. 81-64, 6 NJPER 560 (¶11284 1980)). He further dismissed the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(2) claim, finding Makarets did not have standing to pursue it since it prohibits majority representatives from interfering with a public employer’s (not a public employee’s) rights under the Act. The Director further stated that the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (3) claims do not contain a “clear and concise” statement of the facts forming the basis of the claim against the Board, and the N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4b (1) allegation did not contain a “clear and concise” statement of the facts forming the basis of the claim against the NJEA. N.J.A.C. 19:14- 1.3a(3). Additionally, the letter noted that it was unclear if any of the claims were timely given N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c)’s six-month statute of limitations period for filing unfair practice charges. Makarets was advised to file an amended charge or the defective charges would also be dismissed. ¶

Also on September 29, 2025, Makarets responded, stating that she does not blame the Board or the NJEA, and that she believes her incorrect salary guide placement was an unintentional technical mistake that needs to be corrected. Regarding the timeliness of the charge, she stated that the last contract she signed was in June 2025, which was less than six months from the date the charge was filed. ¶

On October 1, 2025, the Director sent Makarets another letter, advising that even if any of charges were timely, they are dismissed in their entirety for the reasons stated in the September 29 letter. The Director further noted Makarets September 29 response bolstered that neither the Board nor the NJEA retaliated against her or that the NJEA acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith in violation of its duty of fair representation. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). ¶

We agree that even assuming the charge is timely, the Director properly dismissed the claims because Makarets does not have standing to bring the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(2), (5) and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(2) claims. Additionally, Makarets did not provide adequate support or explanation of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(1) and (3) and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) claims. She did not cure this defect either when she filed the amendment to her charge or in the documents she filed in support of this appeal. Makarets may continue to pursue her claim internally with the Board and the NJEA or in another forum. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The unfair practice charge is dismissed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: November 17, 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; (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization; (3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; and (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/ These provisions prohibit employee organizations, their representatives or agents from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; and (2) Interfering with, restraining or coercing a public employer in the selection of his representative for the purposes of negotiations or adjustment of grievances. ¶