P.E.R.C. No. 2026-17, Woodcliff Lake Police Department

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-008 PBA LOCAL 206, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants grant the Borough of Woodcliff Lake’s petition to restrain binding arbitration of PBA Local 206’s grievance alleging the Borough violated departmental procedures and Standard Operating Procedures for officer training by giving the grievant an “unacceptable” rating on his assignment in the Juvenile Bureau of the Borough’s Police Department. The grievant contends he never missed any required or mandatory training. The Commission finds it undisputed that he did miss recommended training sessions, and the grievance does not raise a simple factual dispute about how many such sessions he missed. The Commission finds the Borough has non-negotiable managerial prerogatives to select evaluation criteria, require training and determine how to train employees, and to consider the grievant’s non-participation in recommended training (whether mandatory or non-mandatory) when applying its evaluative criteria. The Commission further finds that numerous other substantive assessments factored into the rating, including that the grievant did not show initiative, respond to emails, or communicate with his supervisors . ¶

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 BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-008 PBA LOCAL 206, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Wiss Law P.C., attorneys (Timothy J. Wiss, of counsel) ¶

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

DECISION ¶

On September 9, 2025, the Borough of Woodcliff Lake (Borough) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by PBA Local 206 (PBA). The grievance asserts that the Borough violated departmental procedures and Standard Operating Procedures, Article VI (Specialized In-Service Training), Section C, by giving the grievant an “unacceptable” rating on his specialized assignment in the Juvenile Bureau. ¶

The Borough filed briefs, exhibits and the certifications of its Chief of Police, Stephen Regula, and Det. Sgt. Keith Kalmbach, who oversees the Police Department’s Juvenile Bureau. The PBA filed a brief, exhibits , and the certification of its counsel, Stuart J. Alterman . 1/ These facts appear. ¶

The PBA represents all uniformed members of the Police Department of the Borough but excluding the Chief of Police, Deputy Chief , and Captain. The Borough and PBA are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) in effect from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration and defines grievances as “those arising with respect to the interpretation or application of this Agreement, and minor discipline cases” . (CNA, Art. II.) The CNA states that any officer assigned as a Juvenile Officer, among others, shall receive a stipend worth 1.75% of the officer’s base salary. (Id., Art. III.B.) ¶

The grievant is employed as an officer in the Borough’s Police Department and formerly held a specialized position with the Juvenile Bureau. The Chief certifies that in addition to an evaluation for an officer’s job title, for example police officer, the Woodcliff Lake Police Department also evaluates officers in specialized assignments. The purpose of the evaluation system is to ensure that assignments continue to provide first class services to their residents and evaluate merit for such assignments. ¶

Kalmbach certifies that his assigned job responsibilities include oversight of the Juvenile Bureau, as well as preparing evaluations for officers assigned to it. Kalmbach certifies that he was directly responsible for annually evaluating the grievant since the grievant’s assignment in 2022 as a backup to the lead Juvenile Detective2/; and that the backup position is assigned by the Chief for officers who show interest and wish to potentially advance their careers in the Juvenile Bureau. ¶

The record contains a copy of an undated, unsigned document authored by Kalmbach entitled “2024 Detective Bureau Evaluation, Juvenile Detective,” identifying the grievant as the subject of the evaluation. It states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): ¶

[The grievant] has been serving as a backup Juvenile Detective to [the] lead Juvenile ¶

Detective . . . since 2021. ¶

[The grievant] was the lead investigator on one juvenile investigative case in 2024. [The grievant] authored several subpoenas regarding this case. The case was closed without sufficient evidence to identify a suspect(s) after several months. ¶

In August 2024 I discussed with [the grievant] his career pathway regarding his assignment in the Juvenile Detective Bureau. I explained that I would like to see [the grievant] seek more elective training to improve his skills within his assignment. I followed up the conversation with an e-mail containing several classes that were scheduled to take place in the near future. [The grievant] did not request any elective in-service training during 2024. ¶

[The lead Juvenile Detective] reached out to [the grievant] via e-mail several times regarding Juvenile related matters throughout 2024. [The grievant] failed to respond to these time sensitive matters within an appropriate time frame. ¶

In conclusion, [the grievant] has not shown any initiative as a backup Juvenile Detective. His lack of focus, lack of effort, and lack of communication has shown me that he does not want to improve in this assignment. [The grievant] deserves an overall evaluation rating as Unacceptable for his assignment in the Detective Bureau in 2024. ¶

On March 25, 2025, the grievant and Kalmbach met to discuss the above-quoted evaluation. On March 29, 2025, the grievant emailed Kalmbach: ¶

In accordance with our Performance Evaluation Policy,[3/] I am appealing my [Juvenile] Detective Evaluation. The results are against the manifest weight of the performance demonstrated at all times. ¶

In a June 15, 2025, email to the Chief the grievant “formally rais[ed] a grievance regarding the administration of [his] Juvenile Bureau evaluation.” The grievant contended the “unacceptable” rating was based on “non-mandatory/extra- curricular events and training,” in violation of “Training Standard Operating Procedure Article VI (Specialized In-Service Training) Section C, and all other article that apply.” The grievant requested that the evaluation be “terminated” and permanently removed from his personnel file. On June 27, the Chief denied the request. ¶

Kalmbach denies the grievant’s missed training sessions were the “sole basis” for his “unacceptable” rating. Kalmbach certifies that though training (whether mandatory or elective) was a significant issue, the grievant’s overall evaluation was unacceptable by examining areas well beyond training, including that he did not show initiative, did not respond to emails, and did not communicate with his supervisors. Kalmbach further certifies that the evaluation was premised on the grievant’s “multi-year track record” including prior evaluations which also recommended additional training. Kalbach certifies that he continues to believe the grievant “is unfit” for the backup assignment, which is currently being performed by another officer due to the grievant leaving it. ¶

Kalmbach certifies that the grievant did not respond to any training requests during the second half of 2024, nor did he attend such training. Kalmbach also certifies the grievant never completed the minimum training recommended for Juvenile Officers (see SOP, detailed infra). The record includes copies of emails on various training opportunities sent to the grievant from May through October of 2024 by his supervisors. The record also contains copies of the grievant’s 2022 and 2023 Juvenile Bureau evaluations. These gave the grievant “acceptable” ratings but also recommended that he enroll in “more investigative training classes.” ¶

The record contains a copy of the Woodcliff Lake Police Department Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) issued by the Chief of Police on the subject of training, with an effective date of January 21, 2025. Its stated purpose is: ¶

to establish a standardized protocol which will thereby provide all employees of this department with the means and opportunities for receiving all required agency training as well as additional in-service training as offered by area training facilities. ¶

[(SOP, p.1)] ¶

The SOP, at Article VI, addresses the subject of Specialized In- Service Training, defined as training “designed to develop or enhance the skills, knowledge, and abilities required . . . for specialized assignments that result in the need for additional or specialized training.” (Id., Sections A, B.) ¶

The SOP specifies that the need for such additional or specialized training “to prepare the employee to adequately perform the responsibilities of the new assignment” shall be determined by the Chief of Police or his/her designee upon the recommendation of the department’s training coordinator following a “review [of] the training records of the employee selected.” (Id., Section B.) The SOP states that the minimum recommended training for the Juvenile Officer assignment consists of a “Basic Criminal Investigators Course,” “Interviewing and Interrogation,” and a “Juvenile Justice Course.” (Id., Section C.2(a-c).) ¶

On August 25, 2025, the PBA filed a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators. This petition ensued. ¶

Standard of Review ¶

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 whether that subject “is within the arbitration clause of the agreement, whether the facts are as alleged . . . , whether the contract provides a defense for the employer’s alleged action, or even whether there is a valid arbitration clause in the agreement. . . [as] [t]hose are questions appropriate for determination by an arbitrator and/or the courts.” Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978). ¶

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]. ¶

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). ¶

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). Paterson bars arbitration only if the agreement alleged is preempted or would substantially limit government’s policy-making powers. ¶

Parties’ Arguments ¶

The Borough argues that the policy set forth in the training SOP was never intended to list all required trainings, citing its provision giving the Chief the discretion to determine whether additional training is needed. The Borough avers that the grievant was repeatedly asked to attend additional training, which he failed to do. It further argues that arbitral review of the grievant’s performance evaluation would impermissibly substitute the arbitrator’s judgment for that of management. ¶

The PBA concedes that “criteria” governing performance evaluations are a management prerogative, and that attendance at mandatory trainings is a relevant factor when conducting performance evaluations. But it argues that questions concerning the factual accuracy of a performance evaluation, which it states is the “entire basis” of its grievance alleging the evaluation violated Article VI , Section C of the training SOP , are mandatorily negotiable and legally arbitrable. The PBA argues that this involves no policy judgment and thus no risk that an arbitrator would impermissibly supplant the employer’s judgment on a matter of policy. ¶

In reply, the Borough disputes that “accuracy” is the basis of the grievance and reiterates its prior arguments. ¶

Analysis ¶

An employer has a non-negotiable right to select evaluation criteria. Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed. and Bethlehem Tp. Ed. Ass'n, 91 N.J. 38, 46 (1982) ( “regardless of the presence of preempting legislation, there can be no negotiation on the subject of criteria for evaluating . . . staff” ); Bridgewater Tp. and PBA Local 174, 196 N.J. Super. 258, 262 (App. Div. 1984) (employer’s determination of the qualifications necessary to do police work and of “whether its police officers meet those qualifications” is not legally arbitrable).4/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 also provides in pertinent part: “Nothing herein shall be construed as permitting negotiation of the standards or criteria for employee performance.” A public employer also has a prerogative to require training and to determine how to train employees. City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 98-154, 24 NJPER 341 (¶29161 1998).5/ The grievant contends he never missed any required or mandatory training. But what is undisputed is that the grievant did miss training sessions recommended by his supervisors. ¶

The Borough has a managerial prerogative to consider the grievant’s non-participation in recommended training (regardless of whether characterized as mandatory or non-mandatory) when applying its evaluative criteria. Bridgewater Tp., supra, 196 N.J. Super. at 262. Moreover, the record reflects numerous other substantive evaluative assessments, including that the grievant did not show initiative, did not respond to emails, and did not communicate with his supervisors, that factored into the grievant’s evaluation rating. ¶

The PBA’s reliance on decisions that considered the arbitrability of simple factual disputes arising from evaluations of school employees is misplaced. In New Milford Bd. of Ed . , P.E.R.C. No. 77-25, 2 NJPER 353 (1976), a grievance challenged the accuracy of a statement in an evaluation that a teacher was late on seven specified dates. That aspect of the grievance was found to be legally arbitrable because it did not involve educational policy judgments . But the evaluation’s assessment of the teacher’s willingness to carry out certain professional responsibilities was found to involve educational policy judgments that could not be submitted to arbitration . Id . In Bridgewater-Raritan Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 77-21, 3 NJPER 23, n.6 (1976), which involved a union’s challenge to a school board’s decision to non-renew a non-tenured teacher for unsatisfactory performance, it was similarly noted that “the appropriateness of tardiness as a standard for evaluating satisfactory performance” was “an educational policy judgment,” while “a dispute as to the accuracy of [a] finding that a particular teacher was late eight times” was not.6/ As discussed above, this grievance does not involve a simple factual dispute about how many recommended trainings the grievant missed. ¶

Finally, we acknowledge that the grievant challenges his 2024 evaluation, while the version of the training SOP submitted by the Borough reflects an effective date of January 21, 2025. However, it is the grievant who asserts that the 2024 evaluation violated Article VI, Section C of that SOP. Regardless, the SOP underscores the Borough’s prerogative to mandate training and to determine the manner in which employees are trained. ¶

Based upon the foregoing, we grant the Borough’s petition and restrain binding arbitration of the PBA’s grievance. ¶

OrderBY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: December 18, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ We do not consider the PBA’s sur-reply (including a brief, certification, and exhibits) which it filed on October 31, 2025, without leave of the Commission. On the same date, the Commission’s Case Administrator informed the PBA’s counsel that its sur-reply would not be accepted as part of the record without leave, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(d). No subsequent response or request for leave was received from the PBA. ¶

2/ The grievant’s 2024 evaluation states that he served as a backup to the lead detective since 2021. ¶

3/ The record does not include a copy of the referenced policy. ¶

4/ See also: Atlantic Cty. Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-26, 43 NJPER 202 (¶60 2016) (restraining arbitration of grievance challenging performance notices related to officers’ sick leave usage); Monmouth Cty. Prosecutor, P.E.R.C. No. 2014-91, 41 NJPER (¶18 2014) (performance notices not designed to penalize were not reprimands challengeable as unjust minor discipline in binding arbitration); Washington Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2005-15, 30 NJPER 404 (¶130 2004)(restraining arbitration of grievance challenging performance notices utilizing officers’ issuance of traffic stop summonses as criteria). ¶

5/ See also, Bor. of Dunellen, P.E.R.C. No. 95-113, 21 NJPER 249 (¶26159 1995) (CNA provision requiring posting of information pertaining to Police schools and seminars to give all interested officers “a fair chance to request being sent . . . or to make arrangements to attend same on their own time” interfered with employer’s ability to determine which officers should receive training and was not mandatorily negotiable) (citing, e.g., Town of Hackettstown, P.E.R.C. No. 82-102, 8 NJPER 308 (¶13136 1982)(whether or which police officers should receive additional training and which training programs should be run are not mandatorily negotiable); Town of Kearny, P.E.R.C. No. 81-70, 7 NJPER 14, 18 (¶12006 1980) (determination of professional needs of department in assignment of officers to training schools is non-negotiable management decision); Franklin Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 85-97, 11 NJPER 224 (¶16087 1985)(CNA proposal compelling township to establish training program not mandatorily negotiable, but proposal’s severable procedural issues and overtime compensation were negotiable)). ¶

6/ The PBA also cites City of Englewood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 76-23, 2 NJPER 72 (1976), which we do not address as it was reversed on appeal by 150 N.J. Super. 265 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied 75 N.J. 525 (1977)(finding the decision to non-renew the contracts of non-tenured teachers after closing a school is a discretionary matter for the board and the association’s challenge to the merits of the board’s decision was not legally arbitrable). ¶