P.E.R.C. No. 2026-18, NJ/State (Children/Families)

Notice to employeesNOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES), Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-006 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the CWA’s motion for summary judgment and denies the State’s cross-motion on the CWA’s unfair practice charge. The charge alleges that the State violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., when the DCF Commissioner responded to a CWA email petition concerning the work environment and leadership in the Salem local office with an e-mail criticizing the CWA’s complaints towards the Salem Office Manager and stating that personnel matters are not to be discussed openly. The Commission finds that the CWA’s email petition was protected activity concerning conditions of employment and did not go beyond the bounds of propriety. The Commission finds that the DCF Commissioner’s critique of the CWA’s language for singling out and allegedly bullying the Office Manager had a legitimate business justification. However, the Commission finds that the DCF Commissioner’s statement that personnel matters are not to be discussed openly had the tendency to interfere with the exercise of protected rights under the Act and lacked a legitimate and substantial business justification. ¶

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 (CHILDREN AND FAMILIES), Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-006 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General (Achchana Ranasinghe, Deputy Attorney General) ¶

For the Charging Party, Weissman & Mintz, LLC (Justin Schwam, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On July 10, 2024, the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against the State of New Jersey, Department of Children and Families (State or DCF). The UPC alleges that the State violated subsections 5.4a(1) and (3),1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., when the DCF Commissioner responded to a CWA petition concerning the work environment with an e-mail characterizing the petition as “unacceptable” and stating that “personnel matters are NOT to be discussed or debated openly.” (emphasis in original). The UPC asserts that the DCF Commissioner’s e-mail is coercive and retaliation for protected activity in violation of subsections 5.4a(1) and (3) of the Act. As a remedy, the CWA seeks for DCF to be enjoined from retaliating against protected conduct, for the DCF to post notices to all CWA unit employees declaring that the DCF engaged in coercive and retaliatory conduct in violation of the Act, and for any other relief deemed appropriate by the Commission. ¶

On July 11, 2024, the Deputy Director of Unfair Practices informed the parties that the CWA’s 5.4a(1) claim will be processed but that he was inclined to dismiss the 5.4a(3) claim and would allow the CWA to file an amendment to its UPC regarding the 5.4a(3) claim. The Deputy Director dismissed the 5.4a(3) claim after the CWA did not file an amendment. On October 18, the State filed a position statement asserting that the DCF Commissioner’s e-mail to employees was warranted because the CWA’s e-mail and petition was inappropriate due to its disparagement of the Office Manager of the DCF’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency’s (DCP&P) Salem Local Office. The State’s position statement asserted that the DCF Commissioner’s e-mail reiterated State Policy regarding how to appropriately make complaints through its Office of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA). The position statement argued that the CWA’s petition was inappropriate because it was e-mailed to all DCF employees, not just the Salem Local Office and not just CWA unit employees. On November 18, the State’s counsel entered her appearance and substitution for the counsel who had been on the position statement. ¶

On December 24, 2024, the Director of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing on the CWA’s 5.4a(1) claim. After the State failed to timely file an answer to the complaint and failed to appear for the January 10, 2025 prehearing telephone conference with the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner directed the parties to engage in discovery and attempt to draft stipulations of fact. The parties conferred on a discovery timeline and the CWA consented to not opposing the State’s late filing of an answer, which it filed on January 20. On February 3, the State filed an amended answer to the UPC admitting or denying (or neither admitting nor denying) the factual and legal allegations in each sentence of the UPC’s “Statement of Charge.” The State’s affirmative defenses assert that the State’s actions in this matter involved substantive business decisions based upon legitimate and significant operational needs and did not violate the Act. ¶

The CWA’s counsel certifies to and provides documentary support of the CWA’s efforts in discovery and drafting a stipulation of facts between February and May 2025 that were not reciprocated by the State. On June 2, the Hearing Examiner scheduled a June 10 telephone conference with the parties, but the State’s counsel did not appear. On June 10, the Hearing Examiner e-mailed the parties stating that the State’s counsel “failed to appear and additionally has failed to respond to any emails sent with respect to this matter” and therefore she was setting a motion for summary judgment deadline for July 11. ¶

On July 11, 2025, the CWA filed a motion for summary judgment, along with exhibits and the certification of its counsel concerning the authenticity of the exhibits and the procedural history of the investigation and prehearing process. On August 8, after receiving extensions to respond, the State filed opposition to the motion, as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment, along with exhibits and the certification of its counsel concerning the authenticity of the exhibits. On August 18, the CWA filed a brief opposing the State’s cross- motion. On August 19, the motion and cross-motion were referred to the Commission for a decision. N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(a). ¶

Findings of Fact ¶

Based on the submissions of both parties, we find the following facts. ¶

The CWA is the majority representative of four statewide collective negotiations units, and CWA Local 1038 is a chartered local of CWA that represents employees of the State DCF in Salem County. On April 17, 2024, CWA 1038 sent a “Union News” update to all DCF staff entitled “Union Business: Please Support the Salem Office” that sought for DCF workers to sign an enclosed petition (via a link at the end of the e-mail) to support CWA unit employees at the Salem Local Office. The e-mail stated: ¶

Dear DCF workers, ¶

Members at the Salem Local Office are facing significant challenges under the management of [the Office Manager], who has cultivated a toxic work environment characterized by fear, intimidation, and unrealistic expectations. This has resulted in a mass exodus of 18 employees seeking to escape the hostile atmosphere. [The Office Manager]’s leadership style relies on coercion tactics such as threats of revoking telework privileges or denying time off, leading to mental health struggles among staff who feel unsupported and overwhelmed. ¶

Many are forced to work through breaks and after hours without compensation, fearing reprisals. [The Office Manager]’s communication style exacerbates the situation, fostering feelings of inadequacy and undermining morale. This toxic environment not only jeopardizes employee well-being but also compromises the quality of services provided to the community. Urgent intervention is needed to address these issues and restore a healthy and supportive workplace environment. ¶

Please sign the petition below to support your union brothers and sisters at the Salem Local Office. ¶

https://forms.gle/Qhjw12wnxqLsVvW47 ¶

In solidarity, ¶

CWA Local 1038 ¶

The enclosed petition was entitled “Help End the Toxic Work Conditions at the Salem Local Office” and stated: ¶

To Whom It May Concern, ¶

We, the undersigned employees of DCP&P, are writing this petition to address the concerning and detrimental work environment created by the [Office Manager] since taking over as the Local Officer Manager at the Salem Local Office. Under her leadership, the Salem Local Office has become an unhealthy and hostile workplace, leading to a mass exodus of 18 employees who have either quit, retired, transferred, or self-demoted to escape this toxic environment. ¶

[The Office Manager]’s management style is built on fear and intimidation. She imposes unrealistic expectations on us and uses threats of removing us from telework or denying our time off as a means of coercion. We do not feel supported by her leadership, and our mental health is suffering as a result. Many of us must work through our lunches and breaks to keep up with her demands. Some employees even work after hours without compensation or during sick and vacation days out of fear of repercussions. ¶

Furthermore, [the Office Manager]’s communication style is demeaning and condescending. She belittles and undermines us, making us feel inadequate as employees when we cannot meet her unreasonable expectations. This toxic environment is detrimental to our well-being and hampers the quality of services provided to the families in Salem County. ¶

We are pleading for immediate intervention to address [the Office Manager]’s toxic work environment. The well- being of the employees and effectiveness of the services provided by the Salem Local Office are at stake. [The Office Manager]’s actions are affecting our health and impacting the services offered to the families in the community. ¶

We urge swift action to rectify this situation and restore a healthy and supportive work environment at the Salem Local Office. ¶

Sincerely, ¶

The petition had spaces for employee names and work locations. ¶

On April 26, 2024, the DCF Commissioner sent an email entitled “Personnel Matters” to all DCF DCP&P staff stating: ¶

Dear colleague, ¶

It has come to my attention that CWA circulated a letter to staff in the Division of Child Protection and Permanency, calling out a local office manager and making unfounded allegations. This is unacceptable. I will not allow ANY staff to be named, shamed or bullied publicly by ANYONE! ¶

The Department has a process by which work-related complaints are lodged, investigated and administrative action is taken, if appropriate. Our Office of Employee Relations and Office of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action are designated for these purposes. They are fully responsive to inquiries and concerns, pursuant to agency/state policies and the collective negotiations agreements. ¶

Personnel matters are NOT to be discussed or debated openly. This is for the benefit and protection of ALL staff. The work we do at DCF is life-changing for children and families throughout the state. We cannot allow internal discord to undermine what we do. ALL staff are responsible for creating a respectful and professional work environment. Staff at all levels excel and succeed when we work collaboratively, build rapport and support each other. ¶

Thank you. ¶

[4/26/24 DCF Commissioner Personnel Matters email; underlines and all-caps in original.] ¶

In response, the CWA filed this UPC on July 10, 2024. ¶

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. N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(e); 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). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, we must ascertain “whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill at 540. “Although summary judgment serves the valid purpose in our judicial system of protecting against groundless claims and frivolous defenses, it is not a substitute for a full plenary trial” and “should be denied unless the right thereto appears so clearly as to leave no room for controversy.” Saldana v. DiMedio, 275 N.J. Super. 488, 495 (App. Div. 1995). ¶

Arguments ¶

The CWA asserts that summary judgment should be granted in its favor because there are no material facts in dispute and the DCF Commissioner’s April 26, 2024, email in response to the CWA’s April 17 email and petition regarding working conditions in the Salem Local Office violates subsection 5.4a(1) of the Act. The CWA argues that employees have the right to communicate with each other about employment conditions and the DCF’s email finding their petition “unacceptable” and warning them not to discuss personnel matters has a tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce CWA employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act. It contends that the email would reasonably tend to chill CWA employees from signing the petition and expressing support for their colleagues’ workplace complaints. ¶

The State asserts that summary judgment in its favor is appropriate. It argues that the CWA’s email and petition were not protected activity under the Act because they are mostly focused on disparaging the Office Manager of the Salem Local Office and its claims are unsubstantiated. The State contends these complaints do not relate to enforcing a collective negotiations agreement or preserving employees’ working conditions. It asserts that the CWA’s email lost the protections of the Act because it went beyond the bounds of propriety with its unsupported allegations and inflammatory language. The State argues it had a legitimate and substantial business justification for sending the email in order to reaffirm workplace expectations that no employee should be berated and that there are internal procedures for making complaints. ¶

The CWA replies that there was no legitimate and substantial business justification for the DCF Commissioner’s email because its contention that the CWA’s email would cause “internal discord” that would “undermine” the DCF’s work is not supported by any evidence. The CWA argues that, while the DCF Commissioner is free to “reaffirm workplace expectations” and notify employees of internal OER/EEO policies, the CWA’s unit employees are not limited to exclusively making internal complaints and may make collective complaints through their union. The CWA asserts that its email did not go beyond the bounds of propriety as it did not contain objectively offensive words or unbecoming conduct. ¶

Analysis ¶

Our Act gives public employees the right, without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join and assist any employee organization. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. The Act also covers concerted activity engaged in for employees’ mutual aid and protection. See City of Margate, P.E.R.C. No. 87-145, 13 NJPER 498, 500 n.3 (¶18183 1987) (protection for “mutual aid” derives from the Act’s broad definition of “representative” as encompassing a “group of public employees” , N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3, and from the right of public employees, pursuant to Article I, par. 19 of the New Jersey Constitution, to present grievances through representatives of their own choosing). Protected activity under the Act includes conduct on behalf of a union or individual in connection with collective negotiations, grievance processing, contract administration and enforcement, or preserving or protesting working conditions of employees in a recognized or certified unit. N.J. Turnpike Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-38, 48 NJPER 393 (¶90 2022); Bridgewater-Raritan Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2010-43, 35 NJPER 455 (¶150 2009); State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-11, 31 NJPER 276 (¶109 2005); and North Brunswick Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 79-14, 4 NJPER 451 (¶4205 1978), aff’d (App. Div. 1979). ¶

“An employer violates subsection 5.4a(1) if it engages in activities which tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce an employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, provided the actions taken lack a legitimate and substantial business justification.” Mine Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 86-145, 12 NJPER (¶17197 1986). For a 5.4a(1) violation to be found, proof of actual interference, restraint, coercion, intimidation, or motive is unnecessary; the tendency to interfere is sufficient. See Trenton Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-45, 49 NJPER 530 (¶126 2023); and Commercial Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 83-25, 8 NJPER 550, 552 (¶13253 1982), aff’d, 10 NJPER 78 (¶15043 App. Div. 1983). “The test for analyzing a section 5.4(a)(1) charge is objective[;] . . . neither the employee nor the union need prove a motive or intent to coerce or interfere.” Lakehurst Bd. of Ed., *5, 31 NJPER 290 (¶113 App. Div. 2005), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2004-74, 30 NJPER 186 (¶69 2004). ¶

A determination of whether an employer’s actions tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce a reasonable employee in the exercise of rights protected under the Act requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances. Cape May City Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-37, 5 NJPER 411 (¶10214 1979), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 89 (¶72 App. Div. 1980); and Trenton Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-45, supra. In deciding whether or not an employer statement violates section 5.4a(1), the Commission applies a balancing test acknowledging two important interests: the employer’s right of free speech and the employee’s right to be free from coercion, restraint, or interference in the exercise of protected rights. State of NJ (Trenton State College), P.E.R.C. No. 88-19, 13 NJPER 720 (¶18269 1987). The Act permits employers to express opinions about labor relations; however, an employer may not make a statement to employees that has a tendency of discouraging them from engaging in protected activity and/or consulting with their majority representative. Id. at 721. ¶

First, we find that the subjects discussed in the CWA’s April 17, 2024 email and petition concern working conditions and are therefore examples of protected union activity. The email and petition discuss the impacts of the leadership in the Salem Local Office on the following terms and conditions of employment: availability and retention of telework; requests for time off; work hours; lunch and breaks; compensation for hours worked; use of sick and vacation days; and hostile work environment. The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized “the preeminence of pay and working hours as quintessential terms and conditions of employment.” Robbinsville Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Washington Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 227 N.J. 192, 199 (2016); In re Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 403 (1982) ( “rates of pay and working hours” are the “prime examples” of mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment). To the extent the CWA’s email and petition complain about the allegedly “hostile” work environment caused by the Officer Manager and her alleged “demeaning and condescending” communication style and its impact on employees, the Commission has held that employee concerns about being treated with dignity and respect in the workplace intimately and directly affect their work and welfare and are mandatorily negotiable. See, e.g., State of N.J. (Dept. of Human Services) and CWA, P.E.R.C. No. 94-108, 20 NJPER 234 (¶25116 1994), aff’d, 21 NJPER 262 (¶26165 App. Div. 1995); Neptune Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-42, 48 NJPER 426 (¶97 2022); and N.J. Judiciary (Camden), P.E.R.C. No. 2009-1, 34 NJPER 216 (¶73 2008). ¶

Next, we find that the State’s assertion that the CWA’s email lost the Act’s protection because it went beyond the bounds of propriety is not supported by the record or Commission precedent. The CWA employees’ collective complaints about the Office Manager accuse her of cultivating a “toxic work environment characterized by fear, intimidation, and unrealistic expectations,” criticize her leadership style as relying on “coercion tactics,” describe her communication style as “demeaning and condescending,” and blame her for creating a “hostile workplace.” While these are serious critiques, they are directly related to employees’ workplace concerns and do not exceed the bounds of propriety. The Commission has found that much harsher and less professional criticism was, based on the overall context of the dispute, still protected activity under the Act. See, e.g., Middletown Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 96-45, 22 NJPER 31 (¶27016 1995), aff’d, 23 NJPER 53 (¶28036 App. Div. 1996), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 35 (1977) (union’s grievance co-chairperson’s conduct was protected when he called the author of a district report a “lying scuzball” ); Carteret Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 2016-28, 42 NJPER 231 (¶66 2015) (police officer’s conduct was protected when he engaged in heated exchange with mayor at public meeting calling him a “joke” and telling him to “please shut up” ); and State (Stockton State College), P.E.R.C. No. 2011-78, 37 NJPER 200 (¶63 2011) (union president’s conduct was protected when he engaged in a profanity-laced shouting match with supervisor). ¶

In Morris Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2017-21, 43 NJPER 140 (¶43 2016), relied on by the State, we found that a sergeant’s email to all PBA members depicting him urinating and telling the Township Administrator to “wash your mouth out with this” and calling him a “jerk off” in reference to recent contract negotiations was so crude and disrespectful that it lost the protection of the Act. By contrast, the CWA’s email does not include any extreme or crude verbal or visual content, and does not include intimidating or threatening content.2/ Analyzing the CWA’s email and petition in the context of this Commission precedent, we find that they did not go beyond the bounds of propriety and did not lose the protection of the Act. ¶

We next consider the DCF Commissioner’s April 26, 2024 email response to the CWA’s email. The Commissioner stated that the CWA’s email was “unacceptable” for “calling out a local office manager and making unfounded allegations.” The Commissioner characterized the CWA’s complaints about the Office Manager of the Salem Local Office as bullying, stating: “I will not allow ANY staff to be named, shamed or bullied publicly by ANYONE!” After noting the DCF’s internal process for investigation of “work-related complaints,” the DCF Commissioner stated: “Personnel matters are NOT to be discussed or debated openly.” ¶

We do not find that the DCF Commissioner’s “unacceptable” comment was clearly directed at the CWA’s protected conduct in general including the act of petitioning or that it lacked a legitimate and substantial business justification, as it was focused on the “calling out” of a particular employee and tied to the Commissioner’s legitimate concern, expressed in the letter, about “any” staff member being bullied. The DCF Commissioner also had a legitimate and substantial business interest in reminding employees of the DCF’s internal processes for making work-related complaints. However, the Commissioner expressed more than just disagreement with the CWA’s tactics of singling out a particular Office Manager and went beyond reminding employees of internal complaint processes. The Commissioner made the following broad restriction on employees’ rights to engage in protected union activity, stating: “Personnel matters are NOT to be discussed or debated openly.” ¶

Employees have “the right. . . to communicate with each other about employment conditions.” State of New Jersey (Dep’t of Transp.), P.E.R.C. No. 90-114, 16 NJPER 387 (¶21158 1990); and State Operated School District, City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-14, 43 NJPER 106 (¶32 2016). In State of NJ (Trenton State College), P.E.R.C. No. 88-19, supra, the Commission held that an employer’s letter implying that employees should not discuss the college dean’s reorganization plan with their union “could reasonably be found to interfere with the employees’ ability to meet with their union leaders.” 13 NJPER at 720. In Lakehurst, P.E.R.C. No. 2004-74, supra, aff’d, supra, the Commission held that the employer violated 5.4a(1) when a principal criticized two employees for speaking to an NJEA representative about a work-related issue raised in a professional development committee. ¶

Here, the DCF Commissioner’s asserted prohibition on discussing personnel matters openly would reasonably tend to chill protected speech and interfere with employees’ ability to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other and with their union representatives. Consistent with State of NJ (Trenton State College) and Lakehurst, we find that the DCF Commissioner’s email objectively has a tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce CWA unit employees from engaging in protected activity including complaining about a manager’s impact on negotiable terms and conditions of employment. While the State was within its rights to respond that it disagreed with the CWA’s complaints in substance and style and remind employees of internal complaint processes, it did not have a legitimate and substantial business justification for its broader objection to the CWA’s email and employees’ protected rights to collectively discuss and complain about working conditions. ¶

Accordingly, we find that the State violated subsection 5.4a(1) of the Act. We therefore grant the CWA’s motion for summary judgment and deny the State’s cross-motion. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The State of New Jersey, Department of Children and Families, is ordered to: ¶

A. Cease and desist from: ¶

1. Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by sending emails to employees that contain statements which could reasonably be interpreted by unit employees to restrict or threaten their ability to discuss and make complaints concerning terms and conditions of employment. ¶

B. Take the following affirmative action: ¶

1. Post in all places where notices to employee are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked as Appendix “A.” Copies of such notice shall, after being signed by the State’s authorized representative, be posted immediately and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other materials. ¶

2. Within twenty (20) days of receipt of this decision, the State must notify the Chair of the Commission of the steps it has taken to comply with this order. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: December 18, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Notice to employeesWE SHALL cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by sending emails to employees that contain statements which could reasonably be interpreted by unit employees to restrict or threaten their ability to discuss and make complaints concerning terms and conditions of employment. ¶

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; and “(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.” ¶

2/ The other cases cited by the State similarly involved offensive or aggressive speech or behavior not present here. See Berkley Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 86-13, 11 NJPER 461 (¶16164 1985) (police officer’s angry demeanor, verbal chastisement, and yelling out of order at Council meeting was not protected activity); and State of New Jersey (Department of Human Services), P.E.R.C. No. 2001-52, 27 NJPER 177 (¶32057 2001) (employee’s physically intimidating behavior towards supervisor during argument, including yelling and pointing from inches away, was not protected by the Act). ¶

Notice to employeesDocket No. CO-2025-006 State of New Jersey (Children and Families) (Public Employer) Date: By: This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Public Employment Relations Commission, 495 West State Street, PO Box 429, Trenton, NJ 08625-0429 (609) 292-9830 APPENDIX “A” ¶