P.E.R.C. No. 2026-16, Hudson Cty (Corrections)

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF HUDSON, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-025 HUDSON COUNTY SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, PBA LOCAL 109A, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the County’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the PBA’s grievance. The grievance alleges that that the County unilaterally introduced mandatory overtime rules, changed the attendance policy, and mandated home confinement during times of refusals of mandatory overtime. The Commission finds that the PBA’s grievance principally challenges the County’s managerial prerogative to establish sick leave verification processes by means of home confinement and home checks, rather than, challenging a specific application of the County’s sick leave verification policy. The Commission concludes that the County’s need to prevent sick leave abuse and meet its minimum staffing requirements for mandatory overtime outweighs the PBA’s interest in being free of the intrusion of home confinement and home checks. ¶

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 COUNTY OF HUDSON, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2025-025 HUDSON COUNTY SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, PBA LOCAL 109A, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys (Andrew Brown, Jr., of counsel; Seraphema Menna, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Alterman & Associates, LLC attorneys (Stuart J. Alterman, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On June 24, 2025, the County of Hudson (County) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Hudson County Superior Officers Association, PBA Local 109A (PBA). The grievance asserts that the County unilaterally introduced mandatory overtime rules, changed the attendance policy, and mandated home confinement during times of refusals of mandatory overtime. The County filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of its Deputy Director. The PBA filed a brief, exhibits, and the certification of its President. These facts appear. ¶

The PBA represents all Superior Corrections Officers (SCOs) below the rank of Captain who are assigned to the jail and/or penitentiary, but excluding managerial executives, professional employees, clerical employees, other police employees and all other employees. The County and PBA are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with a term of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022. The parties are also signatories to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with a term of January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027, which continued all terms and conditions of the CNA except as modified by the MOA. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Article XVII ( “Sick Leave” ) of the parties’ CNA provides, in pertinent part: ¶

18.2 Employees shall be entitled to use accrued sick leave when they are unable to perform their duties by reason of: ¶

(a)Personal illness, injury or exposure to contagious disease; or ¶

(b) illness, injury or exposure to contagious disease on the part of the Employee's spouse, child, father, mother, legal guardian, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other relatives residing in the Employee's household. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

The Deputy Director certifies to the following facts. The parties negotiated how overtime is allocated amongst PBA members, which is generally scheduled on a rotating basis. However, if additional staffing is required before the start of an overtime shift, officers: (1) may volunteer to take those shifts, or (2) if the County cannot obtain appropriate coverage, may be held over after their regular shift and assigned mandatory overtime. SCOs are subject to home confinement and home checks when they use sick leave to miss their regular shift or refuse mandatory overtime because they claim to be sick. When there are too many SCOs refusing mandatory overtime based on claims of sickness, despite having worked their full shift, the correctional facility is unable to staff the overtime shift appropriately. The Deputy Director certifies that the correctional facility has been facing mass absenteeism among SCOs and has had difficulty meeting its minimum staffing needs for overtime shifts. ¶

On June 13, 2024, the County implemented an amendment to Section IV of “ADM.018 - Mandatory Overtime” (Policy), which provides, in pertinent part: ¶

A. [The County] reserves the right to mandate that some officers remain on duty past the end of their normal shift for the determined length of time sufficient to meet staffing needs and preserve the safety and security of the facility. ¶

(1) The department recognizes only two conditions in which an officer is able to refuse to work the mandated hours/shift: ¶

(a) Sick, meaning the officer is physically unwell and their remaining on duty constitutes, in itself, a threat to their well-being or the safety and security of others or the facility. An individual citing sickness in their refusal of Mandatory Overtime shall: ¶

(1) Comply with all directives regarding use of sick time as dictated by ADM.003: Scheduling and Attendance. ¶

(2) Provide the address of their residence or place of convalescence. If convalescence is to be at a location other than their residence, the employee shall notify Operations of this person’s address and telephone number for verification. ¶

(3) Remain at their residence or place of convalescence, except to consult a physician, attend a medical facility or obtain prescribed medications. ¶

(4) Submit a doctor’s note upon reporting for their next tour of duty. Failure to provide a doctor’s note constitutes a charge of Insubordination. ¶

* * * ¶

(2) Any staff member who refuses mandatory overtime for any reason will not be eligible to work voluntary overtime until fulfilling their next mandatory overtime obligation. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

The Deputy Director certifies that the County’s amendment to the Policy sought to alleviate the correctional facility’s inability to meet minimum staffing needs for mandatory overtime shifts due to SCOs claiming illness when they are held over. The Deputy Director further certifies that in the event an SCO is held over for mandatory overtime and has a family emergency, the SCO may be excused from mandatory overtime so long as they provide documentation of the emergency upon their return to work. In such cases, the SCO is not subject to home confinement. ¶

The PBA President certifies that the parties have agreed, as set forth in the CNA and MOA, that overtime is first assigned on a volunteer basis and that this practice has not interfered with the County’s ability to deliver services. In the unlikely event that sufficient overtime volunteers are unavailable, the County maintains a list of SCOs that can be contacted based on seniority and rank. The PBA President also certifies that the parties have never agreed that being unable to work overtime necessitates home confinement. The PBA President asserts that employees are unable to work overtime for a host of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with illness. There are legitimate reasons why SCOs might be unable to work overtime and unable to remain at home, such as being on vacation in another country, attending to a sick family member at a hospital, or needing to pick up a child from school. The PBA President asserts that, in these situations, the SCOs did not refuse overtime because they were sick, and therefore, a home check is unnecessary and illogical. ¶

The PBA President further certifies that the County did not negotiate with the PBA before implementing the amendment to the Policy. As a result, the PBA filed an unfair practice charge (Docket No. CO-2025-012), on July 23, 20241/ and a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators on August 7, 2024. The request identified the grievance to be arbitrated as follows: ¶

On June 13, 2024, the County unilaterally introduced mandatory overtime rules, changed the attendance policy and otherwise is mandating home confinement during times of refusal of mandatory overtime. Home confinement is normally used when members who call out sick do not report to work. Here, home confinement is being applied to a new period of potential circumstances and for patterns that do not necessarily include calling out for sickness from a place of confinement and/or whether illness and/or injury is involved at all. The cartoon extension of this unilateral subjugation of rights parallel to servitude and other otherwise violates the rights and contract rights of 109A members.2/ ¶

This petition 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, NJPER Supp.2d 130 (¶111 App. Div. 1983). Thus, if a grievance is either mandatorily or permissively negotiable, then an arbitrator can determine whether the grievance should be sustained or dismissed. Paterson bars arbitration only if the agreement alleged is preempted or would substantially limit government’s policy-making powers. ¶

The County argues that it has a non-negotiable, managerial prerogative to mandate overtime to meet its minimum staffing needs. The County further argues, citing longstanding Commission precedent, that it has a non-negotiable, managerial prerogative to establish sick leave verification processes, such as home confinement and home checks, which is what it implemented through the amendment to the Mandatory Overtime Policy. The County maintains that this policy change was necessitated by the correctional facility’s inability to meet its minimum staffing needs for overtime shifts with volunteers because many SCOs were using sick leave to avoid being held over for overtime assignments. ¶

The PBA argues that the County must negotiate over the Policy change. The PBA further asserts that the parties have never agreed that being unable to work overtime necessitates home confinement or home checks. The PBA argues that the County’s amendment to the Policy is unreasonable because employees have a host of reasons, apart from illness, such as family or personal needs that could prevent them from working overtime at the end of their regular shifts. The PBA argues, citing Commission precedent, that the application of a sick leave policy and an employer’s alleged unreasonable implementation of sick leave verification processes that may unduly effect employees’ welfare are mandatorily negotiable. ¶

An employer has a non-negotiable, managerial prerogative to establish a sick leave verification policy and to use “reasonable means to verify employee illness or disability.” Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 82-64, 8 NJPER 95 (¶13039 1982). In Piscataway, we distinguished challenges to the establishment of sick leave verification policies versus specific application of sick leave policies, stating: ¶

In short, the Association may not prevent the Board from attempting to verify the bona fides of a claim of sickness, but the Board may not prevent the Association from contesting its determination in a particular case that an employee was not actually sick. ¶

[Id. at 96.] ¶

Reasonable verification measures may include telephone calls and home visits. Tp. of South Brunswick, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-23, 39 NJPER 190 (¶60 2012)(restraining arbitration based on the employer’s managerial prerogative to verify illness and because the union did not establish that application of the sick leave verification process was intrusive); compare Dumont, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-7, 28 NJPER 337 (¶33118 2002)(finding a grievance legally arbitrable because it did not challenge the Borough’s adoption of sick leave verification policy, but rather a particular home check.) Regarding the use of home confinement and home checks by employers as a means of sick leave verification, the Commission has also stated: ¶

In most instances, the employer’s need to prevent sick leave abuse outweighs the absent employee’s right to be free of the intrusion of a telephone call at home. Accordingly, the employer generally need not negotiate over a proposal to justify a home check by a valid compelling reason. Nor must it negotiate over a proposal to limit home checks to normal day time business hours. ¶

[Tp. of Maplewood, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-9, 25 NJPER 374 (¶30163 1999)(finding not mandatorily negotiable sick leave verification provisions submitted by the PBA in an interest arbitration.)] ¶

Here, we grant the County’s request to restrain arbitration of the PBA’s grievance because it principally challenges the County’s managerial prerogative to establish sick leave verification processes by means of home confinement and home checks. The PBA’s grievance does not challenge a specific application of the County’s sick leave verification policy, whether a particular home check was intrusive or unreasonable, or any discipline that has been issued for violating the home confinement mandate. The Deputy Director certifies that this amended Policy was needed to address the minimum staffing issues for mandatory overtime shifts resulting from SCOs using sick leave when held over. ¶

The parties’s CNA limits the use of sick leave to employees’ “personal illness, injury or exposure to contagious disease” or such a condition for “relatives residing in the Employee's household.” The County’s amendment to the Policy expressly relates to use of sick leave for those purposes, rather than, other forms of leave such as vacation, which may apply to the PBA’s proffered examples of being on vacation in another country or needing to pick up a child from school. The distinction the PBA draws between SCOs who “call out sick” for their regular shift and those who “refuse” mandatory overtime due to sickness is a distinction without a difference; in both cases, the SCOs are requesting to use sick leave and are therefore subject to the County’s verification policy. The Deputy Director certifies that a family emergency is not subject to home confinement, and the employee may be excused from mandatory overtime given they provide documentation of the emergency upon their return to work. In the case of “attending to a sick family member at the hospital” , the County’s amended Policy provides an exception from the home confinement requirement “to consult a physician, attend a medical facility or obtain prescribed medications,” and additionally, allows “convalescence” to be at a location other than the employee’s residence so long as the employee provides proper notice of the location and contact information for verification. Thus, the PBA’s proffered reasons for SCOs refusing to work mandatory overtime do not serve as a basis for challenging the County’s requirement for home confinement and home checks when SCOs use sick leave. ¶

For all the foregoing reasons, we find the County’s need to prevent sick leave abuse and meet its minimum staffing requirements for mandatory overtime outweighs the SCOs interest in being free of the intrusion of home confinement and home checks. As we have stated in prior cases, the PBA may challenge particular applications of the County’s sick leave verification policy that may be implemented in an unreasonable manner and unduly interferes with an employee's welfare. See Piscataway, Dumont, and Maplewood, supra. However, here, the PBA’s grievance is challenging the County’s non-negotiable, managerial prerogative to establish sick leave verification policies, and accordingly, we restrain arbitration. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The County of Hudson’s request for a restraint of arbitration is 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/ We note that the PBA filed, on August 1, 2024, another unfair practice charge against the County, CO-2025-021, together with an application for interim relief, which was granted in I.R. No. 2025-4, 51 NJPER 92 (¶22 2024). That charge alleged that the County unilaterally imposed a "mandatory overtime work schedule" which pre-scheduled mandatory overtime shifts instead of overtime shifts first being distributed according to the voluntary list in accordance with policy ADM.018- Mandatory Overtime. The PBA subsequently withdrew that charge. ¶

2/ This description of the grievance is nearly identical to the one contained in the PBA’s unfair practice charge, CO-2025-021. This charge has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the instant scope of negotiations petition. ¶