P.E.R.C. No. 2026-21, Harvey Cedars Boro

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF HARVEY CEDARS, Public Employer, -and- Docket No. RO-2025-048 IBT LOCAL 35, Petitioner. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Borough of Harvey Cedars’ request for review of a Decision and Order issued by the Director of Representation that certified International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 35 as the exclusive representative of all regularly employed blue-collar workers in the Borough’s Department of Public Works (DPW). The Commission finds the record facts and applicable law amply support the Director’s conclusion that a certain written agreement covering seven DPW employees did not render IBT’s representation petition untimely under the “contract bar rule” because: (1) the agreement was not collectively negotiated or executed by a designated organization representative but was, in substance, an individual employment contract for each of the then-employed signers; and (2) it lacked a recognition clause with a well-defined unit and a grievance procedure, an essential and required element under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. ¶

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 HARVEY CEDARS, Public Employer, -and- Docket No. RO-2025-048 IBT LOCAL 35, Petitioner. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Public Employer, Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro and Murphy, PC, Attorneys (Arthur R. Thibault Jr., of counsel and on the brief; Timothy Dunn, on the brief) ¶

For the Petitioner, Zazzali, P.C., Attorneys (Colin M. Lynch, of counsel and on the brief; Wesley B. Friedman, on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On September 15, 2025, and as amended on September 17, the Borough of Harvey Cedars (Borough) filed a request for review of D.R. No. 2026-4, 52 NJPER 69 (¶16 2025), a Decision and Order issued on September 3 by the Director of Representation (Director) that certified International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 35 as the exclusive representative of all regularly employed blue-collar workers in the Borough’s Department of Public Works (DPW). IBT filed opposition to the Borough’s request for review on September 29, 2025. ¶

Before the Director the Borough argued that IBT’s representation petition, filed on March 13, 2025, was untimely under the Commission’s “contract bar rule” 1/ because of the existence of a written agreement covering the period from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2028. The agreement addressed certain terms and conditions of employment - such as stipends and health benefits - and was individually signed on a single signature page by then employed DPW workers. ¶

The record presented to the Director includes a copy of the 2025-2028 contract, entitled “Harvey Cedars Public Works Agreement.” Four pages long (including the signature page), it lacks a recognition clause, a grievance procedure and a full salary guide. The signatures of the Borough’s Commissioner of Public Works and seven DPW workers appear on the final page beneath a heading which states: “PLEASE SIGN YOUR ACCEPTANCE TO THE 2025-2028 AGREEMENT.” The agreement, among other things, obligates all employees to adhere to the Borough’s Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual (Policy Manual), and states that certain terms of the agreement are set by that Manual, including holiday leave as well as sick, vacation, and personal leave.2/ The record also includes a copy of the Policy Manual, which states among other things that it is subject to the Borough’s reserved right to “change, delete, suspend, or discontinue” any parts of it “at any time, without prior notice,” and that any such actions will apply to “existing as well as future employees.” ¶

The Director found that the 2025-2028 agreement did not implicate the contract bar rule because: (1) it was not collectively negotiated or executed by a designated organization representative but was, in substance, an individual employment contract for each of the signers despite that they all signed on a single acceptance page; and (2) it lacked a recognition clause with a well-defined unit and a grievance procedure. 52 NJPER at 71. The Director further found that to the extent the signers could be considered a representative organization making decisions by consensus, that organization no longer existed after changes in the DPW employee roster, implicating an exception to the contract bar rule known as the “defunctness doctrine” . 52 NJPER at 71. ¶

A request for review will be granted only for one or more of these compelling reasons: ¶

1. A substantial question of law is raised concerning the interpretation or administration of the Act or these rules; ¶

2. The Director of Representation’s decision on a substantial factual issue is clearly erroneous on the record and such error prejudicially affects the rights of the party seeking review; ¶

3. The conduct of the hearing or any ruling made in connection with the proceeding may have resulted in prejudicial error; and/or ¶

4. An important Commission rule or policy should be reconsidered. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:11-8.2.] ¶

The Borough contends, in sum, that the Director erred in finding that the Borough’s 2025-2028 agreement with certain DPW employees was not a collective negotiations agreement warranting application of the contract bar rule.3/ In making that argument, the Borough does not specifically cite to or invoke any of the grounds for review listed in N.J.A.C. 19:11-8.2. For the reasons that follow, we deny review. ¶

In support of review the Borough argues: no individual employment contracts were linked to the 2025-2028 agreement because it was reached “after months of extensive, substantive negotiations” with the signing employees who “were treated as a bargaining unit” ; the Borough and DPW employees have a decades- long negotiations history; the Borough does not engage in individual negotiations with or provide separate contracts to new or prospective DPW employees; and the 2025-2028 agreement contains explicit beginning and ending dates, incorporates and refers to the Policy Manual for terms and conditions governing leave time, and does not refer to DPW employees as “independent contractors” or condition the agreement’s viability on the signing of individual agreements. ¶

We reject those arguments. We find the Director’s determination that the contract bar rule does not apply here is amply supported by the record presented and is fully consistent with applicable law and relevant precedent, including: N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 ( “[G]rievance and disciplinary review procedures shall be included in any agreement entered into between the public employer and the representative organization” (emphases added)); Clearview Reg. H.S. Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 78-2, 3 NJPER 248, (1977); Jamesburg Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 2002-2, 27 NJPER 344 (¶32123 2001) (representation petition not barred by agreements that, despite containing some substantive terms, were signed by each individual employee, were not collectively negotiated, and lacked recognition clause and grievance procedure); and Newark Housing Auth., D.R. No. 92-35, 18 NJPER 329 (¶23144 1992) (contract bar not triggered by agreement that lacked dispute resolution mechanism and was conditioned on the signing of individual agreements). ¶

As explained in Clearview, supra, by “limit[ing] the filing of petitions seeking to change the [existing] negotiations unit or its representative to a prescribed period shortly before the [existing written] agreement expires,” the contract bar rule balances public employees’ right to “select or to refrain from selecting an employee representative . . . [with] the public concern that an existing negotiations relationship” between a public employer and a majority representative should “not be subject to continuous and untimely disruptions” during the term of a collectively negotiated agreement. 3 NJPER at 251. ¶

Under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, the inclusion of a grievance procedure in “any” agreement entered into between a public employer and a majority representative organization is not optional. Here, the Borough admits the 2025-2028 agreement covering seven DPW employees “does not contain a grievance provision.” (Borough’s Amended Request for Review, p. 9.) The agreements at issue in both Jamesburg and Newark, supra, which were found not to trigger the contract bar rule, also lacked the essential and required element of a grievance procedure. ¶

Further, the Borough’s claim that it did not condition the 2025-2028 agreement’s “viability” on the signing of separate individual agreements does not credibly refute the Director’s determinations that the agreement “was conditioned on all” then- employed individual DPW employees signing it, making it substantively no different from seven individual employment contracts despite bearing seven signatures on a single page. 52 NJPER at 71. Therefore, we find the Director reasonably concluded the 2025-2028 agreement was not “the type of agreement covered by the contract bar rule.” Id. ¶

Based on the foregoing, the Borough of Harvey Cedars’ request for review of D.R. No. 2026-4, 52 NJPER 69 (¶16 2025) is denied. ¶

OrderBY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey, Eaton, Higgins, Hines, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: January 29, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ In pertinent part as it applies to municipalities, the “contract bar” rule in N.J.A.C. 19:11-2.8 prohibits the filing of petitions to certify or decertify public employee representatives “[d]uring the period of an existing written agreement containing substantive terms and conditions of employment and having a term of three years or less,” unless such a petition “is filed not less than 90 days and not more than 120 days before the expiration or renewal date” of the existing agreement. Id., at (c)(2). The Director found IBT’s representation petition “would be untimely filed” if the 2025-2028 agreement signed by certain DPW employees was “the type of agreement covered by the contract bar rule.” 52 NJPER at 70-71. ¶

2/ The record also contains copies of predecessor DPW agreements provided by the Borough, described by the Director in pertinent part as follows: “The earliest . . . is the 2011-2012 agreement and contains a salary guide showing that the DPW employees to whom the agreement applied were all considered ‘laborers’ . The 2013-2016 agreement is the most recent that contains a full salary guide, which also references the employees as laborers. Subsequent agreements . . . do not have full salary guides but instead reference the percentage increase of salaries. . . . None . . . have recognition provisions defining a negotiations unit, a grievance procedure, or any references to an organizational name for the employees.” 52 NJPER at 70. ¶

3/ We do not address or review the Director’s reasoning regarding the “defunctness doctrine” because the Borough does not mention or challenge it in its request for review. ¶