P.E.R.C. No. 2026-23, Upper Saddle River B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of UPPER SADDLE RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-015 UPPER SADDLE RIVER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies a request for a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Upper Saddle River Education Association which contests the withholding of a teacher’s salary and step increment. The Upper Saddle River Board of Education withheld the increment after it determined the grievant allegedly missed classes, came to class late, or left class early. The Commission finds the grievance to be legally arbitrable because allegations of poor attendance and classroom abandonment are predominantly disciplinary in nature. ¶

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 UPPER SADDLE RIVER BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-015 UPPER SADDLE RIVER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys (Matthew J. Giacobbe, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Springstead & Maurice, Esqs., attorneys (Alfred F. Maurice, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On October 9, 2025, the Upper Saddle River Board of Education (Board) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Upper Saddle River Education Association (Association).1/ The grievance asserts that Jonathan Kulhawy, a music teacher employed by the Board, was disciplined without just cause when the Board withheld his yearly salary increment. ¶

The Board filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of Dr. C. Laurel Schoen, the Chief School Administrator for the Board. The Association filed a brief, exhibits and the certification of Jonathan Kulhawy, along with a request for an evidentiary hearing.2/ These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents a broad-based unit that includes certificated personnel, including teachers. The Board and Association are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) effective from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2028. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

The Chief School Administrator certifies to the following facts. Prior to the 2024-2025 school year, Kulhawy was placed on a professional improvement plan (PIP) due to “deficiencies...in the critical areas of professionalism and judgment.” 3/ The Chief School Administrator further certifies that Kulhawy had received a letter of reprimand for conduct in 2021, where he left his assigned teaching duty 20 minutes early. In February 2023, Kulhawy was also advised verbally and in writing not to leave his classroom early after parents had presented concerns to administrators. ¶

In December 2024, the Chief School Administrator certifies that Kulhawy failed to report for his teaching assignment with the orchestra. As a result, administrators conducted an investigation which determined that Kulhawy had left early and/or abandoned his teaching assignments early on 21 separate occasions, resulting in 393 lost instructional minutes. It is not alleged that Kulhawy left the students unattended, as he was a co-teacher for the class and not the “primary” instructor. ¶

On March 31, 2025, Kulhawy received a letter from Dave Kaplan, Assistant Superintendent, documenting these findings. The letter stated: ¶

On December 4, 2024, I visited the band room [] to participate in the lesson with the orchestra. As I entered the room, a student said, “Oh it’s Mr. Kaplan. I guess Mr. Kulhawy isn’t coming again.” I remained in the room for 20 minutes and you were not present that entire time. Upon a subsequent review of the camera in that hallway, it was apparent that you did not attend any portion of this class, despite the fact that you were required to do so as your assigned professional responsibilities as a classroom teacher. Furthermore, you did not inform any supervisor that you were not attending your assigned class. ¶

* * * ¶

An expanded review of the cameras revealed that between October 23, 2024 and January 29, 2025, you missed a total of [393] instructional minutes at Bogert Elementary School []. This represents [21] distinct and separate occasions on which you either partially or fully abandoned your assigned teaching assignment...to support Bogert’s full-time band/orchestra teacher. ¶

Your role as a certificated staff member, regardless of the fact that you are a co- teacher, is vitally important to the full educational experiences for your students. Furthermore, missing [393] instructional minutes of pupil contact time unquestionably has a significant negative impact on instruction, support, and student progress. As we have discussed, your assignment in this class was intentionally created so that students are able to receive individualized support, in a large group setting, without disrupting instruction for the entire class of 30-40 students. ¶

Based on your unacceptable teaching performance in the 2024-2025 school year and prior written warning regarding same, I am recommending that [the Chief School Administrator] withhold your salary and adjustment increment for the 2025-2026 school year. ¶

The next day, the Chief School Administrator sent a letter to Kulhawy that stated, in relevant part: “[b]ased upon my review of the evidence and Mr. Kaplan’s recommendation, I will be recommending to the [] Board of Education to withhold your salary and adjustment increment for 2025-2026 school year based upon your unacceptable and poor teaching performance.” The Board voted to withhold the increment on April 4. ¶

On June 20, 2025, Kulhawy received a summative evaluation for the previous school year. He earned a score of 2.1, or “partially effective” in the professional responsibilities section. While the rater noted that Kulhawy continued to receive high marks in his teaching ability and “de facto met the requirements” of the PIP, it continued to note the problem of Kulhawy leaving class early or not reporting to class. It also documented that he submitted almost verbatim end of year reflections from the year before. A meeting on the summative evaluation was not conducted until September 17. ¶

Kulhawy certifies to the following facts. He has been employed as a teaching staff member by the Board for 23 years as a music teacher. He also was active in the Association and previously served as Association President. Kulhawy contends that he had no issues with Board administrators until he became Association President and engaged in protected activity to advance the interests of the membership. Kulhawy believes that since then, he has been targeted by the Board, who have placed him on multiple PIPs without due process. ¶

During the 2024-2025 school year, Kulhawy claims that his increment was withheld for his alleged “stealing time” from the district which is the subject matter of the instant grievance and scope of negotiations petition. This allegation, and not any performance reason, is the basis for a disciplinary withholding of the increment. Kulhawy also claims that his summative evaluation for 2024-2025 was improperly conducted, and that the District’s actions are intended to intimidate him from engaging in further protected activity. ¶

On September 17, 2025, the Association filed a request for submission of a panel of arbitrators in accordance with the CNA. This petition ensued. ¶

Under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-26 et seq., all increment withholdings of teaching staff members may be submitted to binding arbitration except those based predominately on the evaluation of teaching performance. Edison Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Edison Tp. Principals and Supervisors Ass'n, 304 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1997), aff'g P.E.R.C. No. 97-40, 22 NJPER 390 (¶27211 1996). Under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-27d, if the reason for a withholding is related predominately to the evaluation of teaching performance, any appeal shall be filed with the Commissioner of Education. If there is a dispute over whether the reason for a withholding is predominately disciplinary, as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-22, or related predominately to the evaluation of teaching performance, we must make that determination. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-27a. ¶

Our power is limited to determining the appropriate forum for resolving a withholding dispute. “[I]n selecting a forum under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-27, we accept the board’s reasons for a withholding and do not consider contentions that those reasons are pretextual or unsupported.” Linden Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-42, 40 NJPER 291 (¶111 2013) (citing Paramus Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2004-30, 29 NJPER 508 (¶161 2003)); Saddle River Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 96-61, 22 NJPER 105 (¶27054 1996).4/ ¶

In Scotch Plains-Fanwood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 91-67, 17 NJPER 144, 146 (¶22057 1991) we stated: ¶

The fact that an increment withholding is disciplinary does not guarantee arbitral review. Nor does the fact that a teacher's action may affect students automatically preclude arbitral review. Most everything a teacher does has some effect, direct or indirect, on students. But according to [legislative history], only the withholding of a teaching staff member's increment based on the actual teaching performance would still be appealable to the Commissioner of Education. As in Holland Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 87-43, 12 NJPER 824 (¶17316 1986), aff'd NJPER Supp. 2d. 183 (¶161 App. Div. 1987), we will review the facts of each case. We will then balance the competing factors and determine if the withholding predominately involves an evaluation of teaching performance. If not, then the disciplinary aspects of the withholding predominate and we will not restrain binding arbitration. ¶

The Board asserts that arbitration should be restrained because the Board withheld Kulhawy’s salary increment due to reasons related to his teaching performance. The Board considers Kulhawy’s conduct akin to poor classroom management, an issue the Commission has often determined to be predominantly related to teaching performance. The Board also claims that Kulhawy’s occasions abandoning the classroom or failing to report is a professionalism issue. In support of that contention, the Board lists past examples where it was alleged Kulhawy abandoned his position, the PIP he was placed on, and the summative evaluation for 2024-2025 documenting professionalism issues. ¶

In opposition, the Association contends that the increment withholding was implemented for primarily disciplinary reasons, specifically one related to tardiness or attendance. The Association argues that the Board’s inclusion of a disciplinary reprimand on similar past conduct undermines the Board’s position that the withholding was evaluative in nature. Additionally, it cites to Kulhawy’s 2024-2025 summative evaluation, which the Association claims is supportive of Kulhawy’s high teaching ability. Further, the Association suggests that the increment withholding was improperly motivated by anti-union animus in retaliation for Kulhawy’s support of the Association, including when he served as President. ¶

In reply, the Board argues that the overall summative evaluation score does not control whether or not the increment was withheld for performance reasons. It reiterates its arguments that Kulhawy’s deficiencies in professionalism and judgment were the areas that were noted as needing improvement and that his failure to improve those areas is a matter predominantly related to teaching performance. ¶

In accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:13-2.2(a)3, the Board provided a copy of the statement of reasons issued to the teaching staff member at the time the increment was withheld. The Chief School Administrator, after reviewing the Assistant Superintendent’s memo and independently reviewing the video footage, recommended Kulhawy’s increment be withheld because he repeatedly “abandon[ed] [his] teaching assignment at the Bogert Elementary School.” While a teacher’s unexcused absence from assigned duties undoubtedly affects student learning, on balance, we find this basis for withholding Kulhawy’s increment to be primarily disciplinary in nature. ¶

This Commission has repeatedly held that “withholdings based on excessive absenteeism or other allegations of non-performance are disciplinary.” Bergenfield Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2006-69, 32 NJPER 82 (¶42 2006), aff’d (App. Div. 2007); Atlantic City, P.E.R.C. No. 98-43, 23 NJPER 567 (¶28283 1997) (tardiness predominately disciplinary); Scotch Plains, supra, (excessive absenteeism predominantly disciplinary). We have also determined that classroom abandonment is fundamentally a disciplinary issue. Lodi Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2016-58, 42 NJPER 451 (¶123 2016) (leaving classroom unattended for 12 minutes predominantly disciplinary); Clifton Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 92-112, 18 NJPER 269 (¶23115 1992) (leaving school before the end of the day primarily disciplinary). In such cases, no educational expertise is required to review whether an employee abandoned their post or otherwise failed to perform their assigned duties. ¶

In this case, the record shows that the sole reason for Kulhawy’s increment withholding was due to allegations that he left class early or missed class in its entirety. In accordance with our precedent, this is an attendance issue and thus primarily disciplinary in nature. The record further demonstrates that the Board itself has, at least in the past, considered this to be a disciplinary issue, as Kulhawy was issued a written reprimand in 2021 for similar conduct.5/ ¶

Since the basis for withholding Kulhawy’s increment is predominantly for disciplinary reasons, the grievance is legally arbitrable. We decline to restrain arbitration. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Upper Saddle River Board of Education’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration is denied. ¶

BY 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/ While the scope of negotiations petition identifies the dispute as one “[w]ith respect to the negotiability and legal arbitrability of a matter sought to be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to a collectively negotiated grievance procedure,” the dispute concerns “the legal arbitrability of a dispute as to whether the withholding of an increment of a teaching staff member is disciplinary or predominantly relates to the evaluation of a teaching staff member’s teaching performance.” ¶

2/ The Association’s request is denied as the filings provide a sufficient basis on which to decide this dispute. ¶

3/ The record does not contain any specifics explaining why Kulhawy was placed on the PIP other than this statement. ¶

4/ We decline to consider whether the Board’s reasons for withholding Kulhawy’s increment were improperly motivated by anti-union animus. If the Association wishes to pursue that claim, it must file an unfair practice charge. ¶

5/ We find the Board’s citations to cases finding “poor classroom management” or the “ability to properly educate students” are inapposite because they do not involve a teacher’s complete absence from the classroom. We also find that Linden Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-42, 40 NJPER 291 (¶111 2013) is distinguishable because the Board’s concerns related to that teacher’s professionalism was one of many reasons for the increment withholding and involved alleged unprofessional interactions with parents. ¶