P.E.R.C. No. 2026-24, 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-2025-024 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 challenging the County’s changes to the medication disclosure policy reporting procedures. The Commission finds that the County had a non-negotiable managerial prerogative to implement its medication disclosure policy more efficiently by requiring that officers report their medications via an Incident Report form submitted to Internal Affairs. As for the PBA’s general challenge to the breadth of the longstanding policy, the Commission finds that it presents a substantive arbitrability question outside of our scope of negotiations jurisdiction that must be raised to the courts. The Commission concludes that the County may re-file its scope petition on this issue, if necessary, after a court determines the substantive arbitrability of the claim. ¶

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-2025-024 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 23 and 24, 2025, respectively, the County of Hudson (County) filed a scope of negotiations petition and an amended petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Hudson County Superior Officers Association, PBA Local 109A (PBA). The grievance alleges that the County violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA), as well as applicable privacy rights and laws, when it revised its Custody Staff Rules & Regulations Manual, Section 3:4-4, to require all superior correction officers to submit an Incident Report to Internal Affairs (IA) disclosing all medications they take, whether prescription or over-the-counter. ¶

The County filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of its Deputy Director, Sharonda Murrell. The PBA filed a brief, exhibits, and the certification of its President, Rene Felix. These facts appear. ¶

The PBA represents all superior correction officers below the rank of captain who are assigned to the jail and/or penitentiary. The County and PBA were parties to a CNA with a term of January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022 and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in effect from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2027. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Deputy Director Murrell certifies to the following facts. The PBA represents superior officers (SO), specifically correction officers in the rank of lieutenant or sergeant. Since the beginning of her employment with the County in 2002, SOs have been required, pursuant to Section 3:4-4 of the Custody Staff Rules & Regulations Manual, to disclose their medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter. SOs are required to report prescription medications on the shift immediately following receipt of the prescription. Regardless of whether a medication is prescribed or over-the-counter, the disclosure only must be made once, unless a change in the medication occurs. No particular form was required. ¶

Initially, SOs were required to make the medication disclosure to their unit managers. There were five unit managers, one lieutenant for each of the corrections facility’s five units. The unit managers were required to take the disclosure to Personnel. At some point, the policy changed and SOs were required to submit their medication disclosures to their supervising officer. There are forty-four (44) supervising officers within the corrections facility. Sergeants could disclose to any of the eighteen (18) lieutenants, and a lieutenant could disclose to any of up to three captains. Supervising officers who received a medication disclosure would take this information to Personnel. Under this policy, any of the supervising officers and Personnel had access to the SO’s medication disclosure. Murrell certifies that the PBA did not contest this change. ¶

On or about June of 2024, the County published a revised version of Section 3:4.4, which stated the following: ¶

There has been a revision to the Custody Staff Rules and Regulations Section 3:4.4 regarding the reporting protocol for any custody staff member taking prescription or internal medications. As such, effective immediately, the following protocol shall be followed: 3:4.4 ‘Upon reporting for duty, a custody staff member shall submit an Incident Report to Internal Affairs documenting any prescription drugs or internal medications they are taking.’ ¶

IA, upon receiving this information, maintains the report in the respective SO’s personnel file. IA serves to protect the integrity of investigations into potential correction officer misconduct and maintains the personnel files of all corrections staff. IA is staffed exclusively by the supervising officers. ¶

Murrell certifies that the amendment to Section 3:4.4 was limited to the recipient of the medication disclosure and the method by which it is made. She further certifies that these changes made the process more efficient and significantly limited the number of officers who have access to an SO’s medication disclosure. SOs are subject to random drug tests by IA, so having IA maintain the list of medications which SOs are taking allows the corrections facility to swiftly confirm whether or not a prescription or over-the-counter medication adversely impacted a drug test. ¶

The PBA President certifies that prior to the amendment, officers were required to report medications to their supervisor, but that the amendment requires disclosure of medications to IA. He further certifies that there were no negotiations over this issue, no discussions of confidentiality or where such information would be stored, and no reasons provided for changing the person/entity to whom officers report their medications. ¶

The PBA filed a grievance asserting that the County “has mandated that all SOA members, Sergeants and Lieutenants provide a list of all medications for no legitimate reason.” The grievance alleges that this mandate violates Article X (Rights of Parties), specifically 10-3 and Article XXVII (Past Practice) of the CNA in addition to state laws (Title 40A and Title 34), the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and “general rights to privacy.” As a remedy, the PBA seeks rescission of the County’s order. On August 7, 2024, the PBA filed a request for binding grievance arbitration (Docket No. AR-2025-142) asserting that on June 13, 2024, the County issued a Revision to Section 3:4-4 of its Rules that mandates the disclosure to IA of all medications taken and that such mandate violates HIPAA and privacy rights. On August 19, 2024, the PBA filed an unfair practice charge (Docket No. CO-2025-035), alleging that the County violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act) when it unilaterally modified the policy. The County’s petition for a restraint of binding arbitration ensued. Both the arbitration and unfair practice charge are being held in abeyance pending a determination on the County’s scope petition. ¶

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 asserts that its amendment to the medication disclosure policy requiring that an incident report be submitted to IA does not intimately or directly impact the work or welfare of PBA unit employees. It argues that medication disclosure requirements have been in place for at least 20 years and the policy change protects employee privacy by reducing the number of people who have access to SOs’ medical information. The County contends the change increases the County’s efficiency regarding its responsibility to keep this information where it belongs. The County asserts that any limitation on its ability to obtain medication disclosures would significantly interfere with its inherent managerial prerogative to maintain the safety of its corrections facilities and personnel. The County argues that the PBA should have sought changes to the broadness of the medication disclosure policy during negotiations and may not challenge it through arbitration. ¶

The PBA asserts that employees have a strong privacy interest against making medical disclosures unrelated to their ability to perform their job duties. It argues that medical disclosure requirements intimately and directly affect employees’ work and welfare and negotiations over such disclosures are not statutorily preempted. The PBA concedes that the County may require disclosure of medications that impact an officer’s ability to safely perform their job duties, but contends that additional unrelated medical disclosures are negotiable. It argues that the medical privacy interests of PBA officers outweigh the County’s interest in knowing every medication taken regardless of impact on job performance. The PBA asserts that the fact the disclosure policy has exceeded the County’s managerial authority for over 20 years does not mean the PBA cannot now challenge the negotiable aspects of it. Finally, the PBA contends that the change in who receives the disclosure is negotiable because officers may prefer to continue reporting medications to direct supervisors rather than IA. ¶

Initially, we consider whether the PBA’s challenge to the breadth of the medication disclosure policy, rather than just the change in reporting, was properly raised through the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure. The PBA challenges that the policy requires disclosure of all medications instead of only those that could impact an officer’s ability to safely perform his job. However, the PBA does not dispute the County’s certified assertion that the policy has required disclosure of all medications for at least 20 years. Furthermore, the PBA is not asserting a violation or misapplication of the policy. The County asserts that because the PBA is seeking to change the policy and not alleging any violations of the current policy, it must do so through collective negotiations and not through grievance arbitration. ¶

Under these circumstances, we find that the PBA’s challenge to the breadth of the medication disclosure policy is a matter of substantive arbitrability outside of our scope of negotiations jurisdiction that must be raised to the courts. See, e.g., Ridgefield Park; Pascack Valley Reg. H.S. Bd. of Educ. v. Pascack Valley Reg. Support Staff Ass’n, 192 N.J. 489 (2007) ( “whether the particular grievance is within the scope of the arbitration clause specifying what the parties have agreed to arbitrate” . . . “is a matter of substantive arbitrability for a court to decide.” ). The County must seek a threshold determination from the court on substantive arbitrability, i.e., whether the PBA’s general challenge to the breadth of the medication disclosure policy without a claim of misapplication or violation of that policy falls within the arbitration clause of the CNA. Following a judicial determination on substantive arbitrability of the PBA’s general challenge to the breadth of the medication disclosure policy, the County may, if necessary, re-file a scope of negotiations petition. ¶

We next turn to the negotiability of the County’s June 2024 amendment to the policy that changed the method for disclosing medications (Incident Report) and to whom the disclosures are made (Internal Affairs). The Commission has held that an employer’s prerogative to establish policies and rules on non- negotiable subjects “includes the right to implement those rules” and that extends to adoption of the forms to implement them. See North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-78, 26 NJPER 184 (¶31075 2000); and Newark Board of Education, P.E.R.C. No. 85-26, 10 NJPER 551 (¶15256 1984). Here, the County has certified that the procedural changes to the policy have made the process more efficient and allow IA, which is responsible for drug testing, to confirm what medications SOs are taking that may impact their drug tests. The County also certifies that the new process has significantly limited the number of officers who have access to SOs’ medication disclosures. The PBA’s asserted interest in having its unit employees be able to disclose medications to certain superior officers rather than those in IA does not outweigh the County’s legitimate interest in efficiently implementing the policy via disclosure to IA. Accordingly, we find that the amendments to the policy are not mandatorily negotiable. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request of the County of Hudson for a restraint of binding arbitration is granted to the extent the PBA challenges the County’s implementation of a change in the medication disclosure policy’s reporting procedures to require that an Incident Report form be submitted to Internal Affairs. We decline to rule on the County’s request to restrain arbitration of the PBA’s challenge to the breadth of the policy for the jurisdictional reasons discussed in this decision. The County may re-file its scope petition on this issue, if necessary, after a court determines the substantive arbitrability of the claim. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: January 29, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶