P.E.R.C. No. 2026-15, Springfield Tp

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, Petitioner, -and- Docket Nos. SN-2025-015 SN-2025-016 PBA LOCAL 76 and PBA Local 76 SOA, Respondents. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the Township of Springfield’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of grievances filed by PBA Locals 76 and 76A. The grievances allege that the Township violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreements and binding past practices when it issued a Special Order setting out that under limited circumstances when there was a patrol officer vacancy , an on- duty supervisor would “drop down” and work as a patrol officer instead of calling in an off-duty patrol officer. The grievances also allege that the change in policy unduly restricted the ability to use contractual leave. The Commission finds that the because the Township altered the way it would fill patrol vacancies in response to a staffing shortage, excessive overtime and the related health and safety concerns, its interest in ensuring patrol officers could perform their jobs safety outweighed the officers’ interest in performing negotiations unit work. The Commission further finds that the challenges related to the use of contractual leave is only theoretical, and thus is not a severable, arbitrable issue. ¶

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 TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, Petitioner, -and- Docket Nos. SN-2025-015 SN-2025-016 PBA LOCAL 76 and PBA Local 76 SOA, Respondents. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys (Jaclyn S. D’ Arminio, of counsel; Nicholas DelGaudio, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Detzky, Hunter & DeFillippo, attorneys (David J. DeFillippo, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 14, 2025, the Township of Springfield (Township) filed two scope of negotiations petitions1/ seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of grievances filed by the PBA Local 76 (PBA) and PBA Local 76A Superior Officers Association (SOA). The grievances challenge aspects of the Police Chief’s Special Order 2024-03 (Special Order) that, under certain circumstances, impact the composition of officers for minimum staffing levels and overtime assignments. ¶

The Township filed briefs, exhibits and the certification of its Chief of Police, John Cook. The PBA filed a brief, exhibits and the certification of its President, Jose Agrelo. The SOA filed a brief, exhibits and the certification of its President, Kevin Gilchrist. These facts appear. ¶

The PBA represents patrol officers, corporals, detectives and investigators in its police epartment while the SOA represents sergeants and lieutenants. The Township and PBA, and separately the Township and SOA, are parties to a CNA in effect from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2027. Both CNAs contain a grievance procedure that ends with binding arbitration. ¶

Article XIII, SECTION 5 of the PBA’s CNA provides as follows: ¶

A list of all officers including but not limited to bargaining unit members shall be established and maintained for all overtime hours worked by all members of the PBA. Overtime will be assigned based on the lowest number of hours worked and/or assigned, as outlined by the Overtime Assignments Policy, Section B, at the time of the needed overtime, by available employees, established by the recorded list. A new list shall be established each year. It is not intended except for an extreme emergency situation, as stated by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, for an employee to work a continuous double tour of duty. Overtime shall be equalized among the members of the bargaining unit. For equalization, all overtime shall be included in the calculation (including Bureaus, Divisions, Court, etc.). ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

The PBA and SOA Presidents certify to the following facts. The Patrol Bureau is the largest Bureau in the Police Department, and contains five squads, each supervised by two Sergeants. The minimum staffing level for Midnight to 4:30 p.m. is four patrol officers. The minimum staffing level for the hours 4:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. is five officers. They certify that the Police Department’s April 11, 2021 “Overtime Assignment” policy provides that if no off-duty patrol officer voluntarily accepts overtime, then the junior most officer/supervisor (either on duty of a hold-over, or from the opposite tour for pre-assigned overtime) shall be held over or ordered to work. ¶

The Chief certifies that the Township was undergoing a severe manpower shortage which created challenging working conditions for patrol officers due to unusually excessive overtime. The Chief further certifies that there was a lack of officers voluntarily signing up for posted overtime shifts, which caused excessive holdovers for police officers, creating reasonable concern for their health and safety. ¶

As a result, the Chief of Police issued Special Order 2024- 03, dated December 12, 2024, which provides in relevant part: ¶

Our current severe manpower shortage has been creating challenging working conditions for patrol officers. The amount of overtime that has accumulated over the past several months is not something the department has seen in recent history. Moreover, due to the lack of officers voluntarily signing up for the available overtime shifts, causing on-duty officers to be held for excessive periods of time, there is reasonable concern for the safety and well-being of our personnel. ¶

Because of this situation, effective immediately, the following temporary staffing and time off changes will be applicable for those periods when posted patrol overtime has not been signed for or has occurred unexpectedly without sufficient notice, causing staffing shortages that would otherwise be filled with patrol officers held over or ordered into work: ¶

- Between the hours of 0000 and 1630, a minimum of 4 sworn, full-time personnel shall be required for patrol operations. This shall be any combination of supervisory and patrol personnel. The on-duty senior supervisor shall command the shift, and other on-duty junior supervisory personnel and other on-duty patrol personnel shall be assigned to regular patrol duties during their shifts. This includes sector assignments and all other patrol related duties. ¶

- Between the hours of 1630 and 2359, a minimum of 5 sworn, full-time personnel shall be required for patrol operations. This shall be any combination of supervisory and patrol personnel. The on-duty senior supervisor shall command the shift, and other on-duty junior supervisory personnel and other on-duty patrol personnel shall be assigned to regular patrol duties during their shifts. This includes sector assignments and all other patrol related duties. ¶

- Any patrol staffing shortage beyond what is coverable by all full-time on-duty personnel, holdovers of on-duty personnel shall be implemented to cover these spots. Holdovers shall be made with patrol personnel first, and if additional coverage is still needed, supervisory personnel shall be held over. Overtime rates for holdovers will be paid at each officer’s or supervisor’s current rate. ¶

- Being that supervisory personnel will now count towards patrol manpower during these certain periods, approvals for both patrol and supervisory time off shall have additional consideration for the above staffing minimums. Only LTs will review and approve/deny all time off requests until further notice. ¶

- If time has already been granted to an officer/supervisor, no other officer/supervisor will be permitted to take off during that same time if a staffing shortage would be created, regardless of shift. ¶

- All overtime sign-up rules still apply - only patrol officers are permitted to sign up for posted patrol overtime, and only supervisory personnel are permitted to sign up for posted supervisory overtime. To reiterate, the above staffing changes are applicable only for times when no patrol officers have signed up for posted patrol overtime, or when overtime has occurred unexpectedly without sufficient notice and a patrol staffing shortage exists that would require patrol personnel to be held over or ordered in. ¶

[Emphasis added. Emphasis in original omitted.] ¶

According to the PBA and SOA Presidents certifications, the parties’ past practice was to always replace an absent patrol officer with another patrol officer on overtime to maintain the applicable minimum staffing levels, thus, allowing a junior supervisor to “drop down” and perform the patrol duties as directed by the Special Order is a deviation of that past practice. They also certify that on December 17, 2024, PBA leadership was advised by the Police Captain that the Special Order would be implemented only when a staffing shortage is caused by an unscheduled absence. However, the Captain further advised that the terms of the Special Order will not be applied to scheduled absences. The SOA President certifies that the Special Order prohibits a patrol supervisor from utilizing paid leave such as vacation, personal and compensatory time when the junior supervisor “drops down” to fill in for a patrol officer even though granting said leave would not adversely affect the one patrol supervisor minimum. ¶

On January 6, 2025, the PBA and SOA filed Step Three grievances challenging Special Order 2024-03. The PBA grievance alleges the following, in relevant part: ¶

First, the PBA submits that the unilateral change referenced above in deploying an on- duty supervisor, in certain circumstances, to maintain the applicable minimum staffing level is violative of the parties’ 2020-2027 CNA including, but not limited to, Articles VI and XIII, and must therefore be rescinded. Moreover, all patrol officers who are improperly deprived of overtime through the deployment of an on-duty supervisor during the pendency of this dispute shall be made financially whole. ¶

Second, SO 2024-03 has essentially created two minimum staffing levels: one for scheduled absences and one for unscheduled absences. Consequently, the refusal to deploy an on-duty supervisor to “regular patrol duties” so as to permit a patrol officers to utilize vacation, personal and comp time unduly restricts said officers’ ability to utilize said leave. Accordingly, the PBA submits that SO 2024-03 is also violative of the parties’ 2020-2027 CNA including, but not limited to, Articles VI; XV; XVI; and XXVIII and must therefore be rescinded. ¶

The SOA grievance, in relevant part, states: ¶

The SOA hereby grieves the actions described above and the changes implemented in SO 2024- 03 as it unduly restricts our members’ ability to utilize paid leave. As you are aware, the Department mandates that at least one (1) Patrol supervisor is permitted to utilize paid leave such as vacation, personal and compensatory (comp) time for the entire shift - or a portion of said shift - as long as one (1) Patrol supervisor is on duty. However, as a result of SO 2024-03, the junior Patrol supervisor will no longer be able to take such vacation, personal or comp time - despite the presence of another on- duty Patrol supervisor - in the event he/she is “assigned to regular patrol” to maintain the 4 officer or 5 officer minimum staffing level. As such, the SOA maintains that such restriction violates the parties’ 2020-2027 CNA including, but not limited to, Articles VI; XV; XVI; and XXVIII and must therefore be rescinded. ¶

Both grievances were denied at Step Three by the Township Administrator, who claimed that these issues were managerial prerogative and not violative of the CNA. ¶

The PBA and SOA subsequently filed Requests for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators on January 15, 2025. These petitions ensued. ¶

Our jurisdiction is narrow. The Commission is addressing the abstract issue of whether the subject matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. We do not consider the merits of the grievance or any contractual defenses that the employer may have. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978). ¶

The scope of negotiations for police officers and firefighters is broader than for other public employees because N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16 provides for a permissive as well as a mandatory category of negotiations. Paterson Police PBA No. 1 v. City of Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 92-93 (1981), outlines the steps of a scope of negotiations analysis for firefighters and police: ¶

First, it must be determined whether the particular item in dispute is controlled by a specific statute or regulation. If it is, the parties may not include any inconsistent term in their agreement. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass’n, 78 N.J. 54, 81 (l978). If an item is not mandated by statute or regulation but is within the general discretionary powers of a public employer, the next step is to determine whether it is a term or condition of employment as we have defined that phrase. An item that intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of police and firefighters, like any other public employees, and on which negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent or express management prerogatives is mandatorily negotiable. In a case involving police and firefighters, if an item is not mandatorily negotiable, one last determination must be made. If it places substantial limitations on government’s policymaking powers, the item must always remain within managerial prerogatives and cannot be bargained away. However, if these governmental powers remain essentially unfettered by agreement on that item, then it is permissively negotiable. ¶

Arbitration is permitted if the subject of the grievance is mandatorily or permissively negotiable. See Middletown Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 82-90, 8 NJPER 227 (¶13095 1982), aff’d (App. Div. 1983). Paterson bars arbitration only if the agreement alleged is preempted or would substantially limit government’s policy-making powers. ¶

The Township argues that binding arbitration must be restrained because this dispute is a challenge to the non- negotiable managerial prerogative to assign employees and determine the minimum staffing necessary for the effective operation of the Township Police Department. The Township also argues that this dispute is not legally arbitrable because it would impede the ability of the Township to determine the number and type of officers to be on duty and whether overtime will be worked. ¶

In opposition, the PBA argues that the grievance does not challenge the staffing levels set by the Township, but instead argues that it is at least permissively negotiable to require that all overtime assignments for the patrol position be offered first to regular police officers before the most junior supervisor is required to work in the lower classification. As to the other grievances, the PBA and SOA also contend that the Special Order’s restrictions on the ability for officers to use contractual leave time is legally arbitrable. ¶

In reply, the Township argues that the Special Order concerns the non-negotiable managerial prerogative to determine the most efficient way to deploy employees and provide public services. The Township contends that, on balance, the public interest in government efficiency outweighs any employee interest. The Township also responds that the record is devoid of how the Special Order could interfere with the use of contractual leave. ¶

The PBA’s grievance challenges the use of an on-duty supervisor to cover a patrol officer when needed to meet minimum staffing levels instead of calling in a patrol officer on overtime. The SOA grievance and the other aspect of the PBA grievance challenge an alleged impediment to contractual leave created by the Special Order. ¶

To the extent the PBA’s grievance challenges the managerial prerogative of deciding minimum staffing levels, the number and type of officers assigned to each shift, or whether overtime is necessary, it is not legally arbitrable. City of Vineland, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-43, 39 NJPER 250 (¶86 2012) (staffing levels non-negotiable); Fairfield Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-73, 40 NJPER 514 (¶166 2014) (number and type of officer assigned to each shift is non-negotiable); City of Long Branch, P.E.R.C. No. 83-15, 8 NJPER 448 (¶13211 1982) (whether overtime is to be performed is non-negotiable). ¶

Despite these managerial prerogatives, the PBA has an interest in preserving officers’ overtime opportunities within their own titles. Disputes involving unit members’ deprivation of overtime opportunities by non-unit members have been found to be mandatorily negotiable. Edison, P.E.R.C. No. 2024-54, 51 NJPER 25 (¶7 2024) (mandatorily negotiable for fire officers to receive priority in working overtime in their own classifications before regular firefighters worked out-of-class in an acting capacity). See Town of Kearny v. Kearny Superior Officers Ass’n (App. Div. 1999), aff’ g, P.E.R.C. No. 98-22, 23 NJPER 501 (¶28243 1997) (employer violated the Act when it unilaterally changed its practice of replacing an absent officer with another officer of the same rank on overtime and instead gave that work to officers working out of title); Nutley Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2010-89, 36 NJPER 229 (¶81 2010), (employer could have legally agreed to call in sergeants on overtime rather than have a lieutenant drop down to the road supervisor position); and Edison Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2010-39, 35 NJPER 442 (¶145 2009) (agreement to first use Lieutenants as Watch Commander instead of temporarily promoting Sergeants was legally arbitrable).2/ ¶

However, none of the above cases involved the concerns expressed by the Township in this case. Here, the Chief of Police, in both the Special Order and his certification, sets out that the Special Order was issued due to a severe manpower shortage resulting in abnormally high overtime needs, and a “lack of [patrol] officers signing up for overtime shifts, causing on- duty officers to be held for excessive periods of time, creating a reasonable concern for the safety and well-being of the officers.” ¶

We find Jersey City, P.E.R.C. No. 2001-32, 27 NJPER 30 (¶32016 2000) to be analogous to the instant matter. In Jersey City, the Commission restrained arbitration of a grievance challenging the City’s assignment of overtime to police lieutenants for work normally performed by sergeants. The City determined that overtime was excessive and could lead to burnout and have a negative effect on officer health and safety. The Commission determined that “[a]llowing an arbitrator to second- guess a police official’s judgment as to the potential effects of such overtime on the quality of [work] would substantially limit governmental policymaking.” Ibid. The Commission also noted that the City’s deviation from the existing practice “was temporary and partial.” ¶

Just as the PBA has a significant interest in performing negotiations unit work, the Township has a strong managerial interest in ensuring officers can perform their jobs safely. On this record, that managerial interest, which is ultimately an extension of a public employer’s “right to determine if public safety personnel are fit to perform the duties of the positions to which they are assigned” , outweighs the patrol officers’ interest in preserving overtime opportunities within the unit. Elizabeth, P.E.R.C. No. 2019-53, 46 NJPER 7 (¶3 2019) (citing Bridgewater Tp. P.E.R.C. No. 84-63, 10 NJPER 16 (¶15010 1983), aff’d, 258 N.J. Super. 258 (App. Div. 1984)). This finding is reinforced by the Special Order’s “temporary” designation, and by the PBA and SOA’s own certifications which set out that the Special Order only applies to a subset of overtime (overtime caused by unscheduled absences). See, e.g., Atlantic County Pros., P.E.R.C. No. 2008-24, 33 NJPER 262 (¶99 2007) (Employer’s interest in creating temporary 3:00 p.m. to midnight shift to respond to multiple evening homicides outweighed employees’ interest in maintaining negotiated work schedule). Additionally, the Special Order notes that for any staffing shortage beyond what is coverable by on-duty staff, holdovers will be made first with patrol officers before holding over supervisory personnel. If emergency conditions exist, a public employer may deploy its workforce to respond, even if doing so may deviate from normal employee assignments or overtime allocation. See Hunterdon Cty, P.E.R.C. No. 83-86, 9 NJPER 66 (¶14036 1982). Given all these considerations, we find that the PBA’s challenge to the use of an on-duty supervisor to cover a patrol position when needed to meet minimum staffing levels instead of using a patrol officer on overtime is not legally arbitrable. ¶

The SOA grievance and the other issue in the PBA grievance contends that the Special Order impermissibly limits the ability of officers from using contractual leave benefits. While it is generally true that grievances regarding “the use of contractual leave time” “relate to [] negotiable and legally arbitrable issue[s],” Nutley Tp., supra, the grievances’ challenges to the Special Order’s impact on the ability to use contractual leave is only theoretical. The PBA and SOA have not put forth evidence or allegations that the ability to use leave has in fact been affected, and thus, arbitration over these issues are also not legally arbitrable.3/ See, e.g., State of NJ Judiciary (Camden), P.E.R.C. No. 2013-90, 40 NJPER 65 (¶24 2013) (lack of specific allegations resulted in no severable negotiable claims to present at arbitration). ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Township of Springfield’s requests for a restraint of binding arbitration are granted. ¶

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: November 17, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ The Commission has consolidated these petitions as they arise out of the same factual background. ¶

2/ The Township cites to Wayne Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2011-9, 36 NJPER 308 (¶118 2010) and Montvale Boro., P.E.R.C. No. 97-62, 23 NJPER 16 (¶28015 1996) in support of its petition. However, we find each of these cases to be inapposite to the present matter. In both cases, the Commission restrained arbitration where the majority representatives filed grievances contesting the allocation of overtime to other qualified employees within the same negotiations unit. ¶

3/ The PBA or SOA are not foreclosed from grieving specific instances where the Township is alleged to have improperly denied an officer’s leave request. ¶