P.E.R.C. No. 2026-27, Newark

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF NEWARK, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-055 NEWARK POLICE SOA, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the SOA’s motion for summary judgment on its unfair practice charge alleging that the City violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., by engaging in direct dealing with a negotiations unit member regarding retiree health benefits. The Commission finds that, while health benefits for future retirees are mandatorily negotiable between the public employer and union, current retirees are no longer employees or unit members and therefore the employer is no longer obligated to negotiate with the union over their benefits in retirement. As the record does not clarify whether the retiree was still an employee when the alleged direct dealing over his health benefits began, the Commission cannot determine whether the SOA has a viable direct dealing claim and remands the case for a hearing. ¶

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 CITY OF NEWARK, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-055 NEWARK POLICE SOA, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Carmagnola & Ritardi, LLC (Sean P. Joyce, of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, John J. Chrystal III, President, SOA ¶

DECISION ¶

On October 4, 2024, the Newark Police SOA (SOA) filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against the City of Newark (Newark). The UPC alleges that the City violated subsections 5.4a(1) and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., by engaging in direct dealing with a negotiations unit member regarding retiree health benefits. On November 25, 2024, the City filed a position statement asserting that it appropriately negotiated with an individual unit member (Sergeant S.D.) in exchange for his release of all claims against the City related to the disputed retiree health benefits. Following a December 4, 2024 settlement conference led by a Commission Staff Agent, the parties were ultimately unable to settle the UPC. On February 11, 2025, the Director of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint and Notice of Pre-Hearing. After further settlement discussions were unsuccessful, the SOA filed a motion for summary judgment on July 1. The SOA’s motion was supported by a brief, exhibits, and the certification of SOA President Chrystal.2/ On September 2, the City filed a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The City did not submit any exhibits or certifications. ¶

Findings of Fact ¶

Based on the record, we summarize the pertinent facts as follows. The SOA is the majority representative for superior police officers employed by the City in the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant, and captain. Mr. Chrystal is the SOA President and a captain in the City’s police department. The City and SOA were parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) effective from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2023. The parties were in negotiations for a successor CNA when this UPC was filed. On March 3, 2025, with the assistance of a Commission mediator, the parties entered into a successor CNA for 2024 through 2027.3/ Article X of the CNA provides that unit employees who retire with 25 years of service with the City shall be entitled to retiree health insurance. ¶

On July 20, 2023, the City approved the “Regular Retirement” of several police officers including Sergeant S.D., effective August 1, 2023. Chrystal certifies that S.D. retired honorably with 22 years of service with the Newark Police Department and 25 aggregate years of service with the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System of New Jersey (PFRS). He certifies that S.D. was previously assigned to the Executive Protection Unit of Mayor of Newark Ras Baraka. ¶

On May 3, 2024, the City’s Business Administrator (BA) signed a proposed settlement agreement (hereinafter referred to as Proposed Settlement) providing S.D. with retiree health benefits. The Proposed Settlement also includes unsigned signature lines for S.D., the “Union Attorney/Representative,” and the “Law Department.” The Proposed Settlement states that it is “to resolve the health coverage discrepancy pertaining to [S.D.].” The Proposed Settlement provides that S.D. “would otherwise not be entitled to these benefits as there is no policy, legal or contractual basis to provide them” and that the City “has agreed to provide said coverage only in an effort to resolve the instant matter which resulted erroneously.” The Proposed Settlement provides that it “shall not constitute a precedent or practice in any matter involving the City or other City employees.” The Proposed Settlement provides that it would preclude S.D. or the SOA from bringing any type of legal or contractual claim (including grievances/arbitration) against the City. ¶

On August 21, 2024, the SOA became aware of the Proposed Settlement. That same day, SOA President Chrystal emailed the following, in pertinent part, to the City’s BA and other City officials: ¶

Please find attached an agreement that you signed, that was prepared by your office and negotiated with Sgt. [S.D.] (retired), without the SOA involvement, which now requires the SOA signature and agreement. Since, the SOA was not involved with this agreement, please find amendments to this matter that the SOA will agree to. Please review and we can discuss this matter. ¶

Chrystal certifies that the SOA agreed in principle with the Proposed Settlement, but proposed a few changes. Attached to the email was a copy of the Proposed Settlement with handwritten edits and amendments made by Chrystal. The most substantive proposed changes included stating that the Proposed Settlement would constitute a precedent or practice between the City and SOA, and that all SOA members with 25 years of aggregate years in the NJ PFRS (rather than 25 years of service with the City) shall be entitled to retiree health benefits provided by the City. ¶

On August 21, 2024, the City’s BA responded to Chrystal’s email with the following: “The City does not agree to the changes proposed by the SOA Union, and thus the agreement is void.” The same day, Chrystal responded to the BA’s email with the following: “You engaged in direct dealing in violation of Commission rules.” On October 4, the SOA filed its UPC. ¶

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 SOA asserts that summary judgment should be granted because there are no material facts in dispute regarding the City’s direct dealing with S.D. over retiree health benefits. The SOA argues that the issue of retiree health benefits is mandatorily negotiable and therefore the City’s direct dealing with S.D. in drafting the Proposed Settlement, rather than the exclusive majority representative SOA, violated the Act. ¶

The City asserts that the SOA’s direct dealing allegation is moot because the parties never all signed a final settlement agreement. The City argues that it did not need the SOA’s approval of the Proposed Settlement because it has a managerial prerogative to settle an employee’s threatened legal claim to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. ¶

Analysis ¶

Section 5.3 of the Act provides that the exclusive right to negotiate terms and conditions of employment for unit members is vested not in an individual employee or group of employees, but in the majority representative.4/ Our Supreme Court has described exclusive representation as “the keystone of sound labor-management relations.” D’ Arrigo v. New Jersey State Bd. of Mediation, 119 N.J. 74, 78 (1990); see also Newark Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 85-24, 10 NJPER 545, 548 (¶15254 1984) ( “this exclusivity principle is a cornerstone of the Act’s structure for regulating the relationship between public employers and public employees” ). ¶

The Commission has therefore held that public employers violate subsection 5.4a(5) of the Act by negotiating directly with individual employees or groups of employees rather than with their majority representative over negotiable terms or conditions of employment, even where individual negotiations resulted in greater benefits. See, e.g., City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 2022-34, 48 NJPER 366 (¶82 2022) (City’s unilateral implementation of severance incentive with expanded retiree health benefits violated the Act); Edison Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-26, 46 NJPER 238 (¶56 2019) (unilateral salary guide advancement of secretary); City of Hackensack, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-54, 45 NJPER 18, 22 (¶5 2018) (unilateral salary increases for some unit members to settle federal lawsuit); City of Union City, P.E.R.C. No. 90-37, 15 NJPER 626 (¶20262 1989) (unilateral salary range increase for two positions) and Town of West New York, P.E.R.C. No. 99-110, 25 NJPER 332 (¶30143 1999) (unilateral placement of unit member at highest salary level to settle political discrimination lawsuit violated the Act). ¶

Health benefits for future retirees are mandatorily negotiable unless specifically preempted. See, e.g., Bloomfield Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2025-43, 52 NJPER 4 (¶2 2025); Piscataway Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-53, 46 NJPER 525 (¶117 2020) and cases cited therein; Henry Hudson Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2014-57, 40 NJPER 419 (¶141 2014); and Essex Cty. Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-86, 32 NJPER 164 (¶73 2006). ¶

However, relying on Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (1971), the Commission has held that, although unions may enforce benefits for current retirees through binding grievance arbitration, “an employer is not under an obligation to negotiate over benefits of already retired employees” because they are no longer employees under the Act. Voorhees Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-13, 38 NJPER 155 (44 2011), aff’d, 39 NJPER 69 (~27 App. Div. 2012); City of Jersey City, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-38, 39 NJPER 223 (75 2012), aff’d, 41 NJPER 31 (~7 App. Div. 2014); and Middlesex Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 79-80, 5 NJPER 194 (¶10111 1979). ¶

On this record, it is not clear whether S.D. was an employee or retired at the time of the alleged direct dealing. S.D. retired on August 1, 2023. The record includes a Proposed Settlement agreement dated October 20, 2023. Nothing in the record indicates when or how the dispute between S.D. and the City arose that precipitated the Proposed Settlement. There is no evidence of a grievance having been submitted, either by S.D. individually or by the SOA, related to S.D.’s retiree health benefits. Nothing in the record indicates what occurred between S.D.’s retirement date (August 1, 2023) and the date of the Proposed Settlement or whether S.D. and the City had begun discussing the retiree health benefits dispute prior to his retirement. ¶

The Commission has not previously considered whether a union may pursue a direct dealing unfair practice charge when the employer’s negotiations were with a current retiree rather than with an employee concerning their future retiree benefits. Compare City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 2022-34, supra (City sought to induce current employees to retire early through direct dealing over severance and retiree health benefits). Based on Allied Chemical and Voorhees, our unfair practice jurisdiction to consider such a claim may depend on the timing of when S.D. and the City first engaged in direct discussions over the retiree benefit, i.e., prior to or after retirement. ¶

Cases from other jurisdictions relying on Allied Chemical have held that if direct negotiations began after retirement, then the retiree was no longer a unit employee so the issue was no longer mandatorily negotiable and there could be no direct dealing charge. See, e.g., Anderson v. Alpha Portland Industries, Inc., 727 F.2d 177, 181-182 (8th Cir. 1984) ( “The Court’s decision in Allied Chemical placed retirees outside of the bargaining unit and sanctioned direct dealing between employer and retirees.” ) However, if direct negotiations between the retiree and employer began prior to retirement, then an unfair practice charge for direct dealing may be viable. See City of Albany, 16 PERB ~3101 (1983) (New York Public Employment Relations Board held that because retiree’s grievance was filed while he was still employed, the union had an exclusive right to pursue its outcome; therefore, the employer’s direct dealing with the retiree to settle an arbitration award violated the Act). ¶

Given the above-discussed precedent, the timing of the City’s negotiations with S.D. over retiree health benefits is material to determining whether the SOA can maintain a viable direct dealing claim or if S.D. was already a retired former employee whose benefits were no longer mandatorily negotiable. Accordingly, we deny the SOA’s motion for summary judgment and remand the case for hearing. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The SOA’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the case is remanded for hearing. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: February 26, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

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 “(5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶

2/ President Chrystal’s certification, in addition to its own statements of fact, certifies to the truth and accuracy of the SOA’s exhibits and to the truth and accuracy of the statement of material facts contained in the brief. ¶

3/ The SOA’s submissions include summaries of, references to, and direct quotes from the parties’ CNA and subsequent MOAs, including the entirety of the 2018-2023 MOA that amended the parties’ 2016-2017 MOA and 2013-2015 CNA. However, we take administrative notice that the parties have submitted these CNAs and MOAs to the Commission pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 8.2 and they are available on the Commission’s website and incorporated into the record. ¶

4/ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 provides, in pertinent part: “Representatives designated or selected by public employees for the purposes of collective negotiation by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes . . . shall be the exclusive representatives for collective negotiation concerning the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in such unit. . . . A majority representative of public employees in an appropriate unit shall be entitled to act for and to negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interest of all such employees without discrimination and without regard to employee organization membership.” ¶