P.E.R.C. No. 2026-28, Englewood Cliffs Boro

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PBA LOCAL 45, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-011 BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the Borough’s City motion to dismiss the PBA’s Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration. The Commission finds that the parties signed and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement that is still in effect. Accordingly, there is not an expired agreement between the parties, which a prerequisite to filing the petition. The Commission further finds that the PBA’s dispute over the interpretation and application of retiree health benefits language contained in the parties’ most recent collective negotiations agreement (CNA) is appropriate for adjudication through binding grievance arbitration pursuant to the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure. ¶

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 PBA LOCAL 45, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-011 BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Michael A. Bukosky & Associates, LLC (Michael A. Bukosky, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs LLC (Adam S. Abramson-Schneider, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On January 27, 2026, PBA Local 45 (PBA) filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration. The petition asserts that the most recent collective negotiations agreement (CNA) between the PBA and the Borough of Englewood Cliffs (Borough) expired on December 31, 2023 and that the parties engaged in negotiations sessions on April 25, 2024, May 23, 2024, and November 6, 2025. The petition asserts multiple economic issues as being in dispute.1/ ¶

On January 29, 2026, the Borough submitted a letter with exhibits to the Director of Conciliation and Arbitration (Director) opposing the processing of the PBA’s petition. The Borough’s letter asserted that the parties already ratified a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the term January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2028 and have been working together to draft and update the successor CNA in accordance with the MOA. The Director acknowledged receipt of the Borough’s letter and exhibits in opposition to the petition and advised that any requests to dismiss the petition must be made to the Commission on motion with supporting certifications of facts. ¶

On January 30, 2026, the Borough filed a motion to dismiss the petition, along with a supporting brief, exhibits, and the certifications of Borough Administrator Intashan Chowdhury and the Borough’s counsel. On February 9, the PBA filed a responsive brief in opposition to the Borough’s motion to dismiss, along with exhibits and the certifications of PBA Chairman Doug Rommes and the PBA’s counsel. On February 10, the Commission granted the Borough’s request to file a reply to the PBA’s opposition and permitted the PBA to file a sur-reply. On February 11, the Borough submitted a reply brief along with exhibits and the certification of its counsel. On February 12, the PBA submitted a sur-reply brief along with exhibits. ¶

Facts ¶

Based on the parties’ submissions, we summarize the facts as follows. The PBA is the exclusive negotiations representative for the Borough’s rank-and-file police officers. The Borough and PBA were parties to a CNA with a term of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023. Article XXV of the 2019-2023 CNA provides that for employees who retire after 25 years of service in the New Jersey Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS), the Borough “will provide full (100%) medical insurance, including family coverage.” Rommes certifies that during the term of the 2019- 2023 CNA, several PBA unit members retired and they all entered into separation agreements with the assistance of the PBA that included their entitlement to retiree health benefits paid entirely by the Borough. (Rommes Cert. at ~~19-24). Rommes certifies that retiree health benefits paid for entirely by the Borough “was how both parties understood the operation of existing terms of the PBA contract.” (Rommes Cert. ~25). ¶

The parties engaged in collective negotiations toward a successor contract with a term of 2024-2028. Rommes certifies that, during those negotiations, the PBA understood that the retiree health benefits clause was an integral part of the existing contract and that neither the Borough nor the PBA sought to change the Borough’s “100%” responsibility for retiree health benefits. (Rommes Cert. at ~~35-36). On April 23, 2024, the PBA made a Health Benefits proposal pertaining to vesting retiree health benefits that did not specify any particular contribution amount. The proposal provided, in part: “The level of health benefits and prescription benefits will be vested as of the date of an employee’s retirement for the lifetime of the retiree and any dependent.” (Borough Exhibit I). The Borough rejected that proposal. (Borough Exhibit J). The PBA’s May 30 proposal included the same retiree health benefits proposal. ¶

On June 21, 2024, the parties executed an MOA for the term of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2028. The MOA provides that the parties “have agreed, subject to the ratification by both parties, on the following terms for a successor Agreement.” (Borough Exhibit A). On July 25, the PBA’s counsel sent the Borough’s counsel a letter stating that “Local 45 has ratified the Memorandum for a Successor Agreement” and seeking the status of the Borough’s ratification. (Borough Exhibit M). On August 14, the Borough ratified the MOA. The MOA includes 15 items and does not address retiree health benefits. ¶

Since the ratification of the MOA, the parties began working on drafting the terms of the successor CNA. The PBA’s counsel drafted the successor CNA and the parties’ counsel have exchanged correspondence demonstrating updates in accordance with the ratified MOA. (Abramson-Schneider Cert. at ~~5-6). Neither party proposed any changes to Article XXV of the 2019-2023 CNA concerning retiree health benefits. ¶

Rommes certifies that since ratification of the MOA, the PBA has become aware that the Borough has changed its position on the meaning of the retire health benefits clause in the parties’ CNA as it was now requiring retirees to make a 35% contribution towards their health benefits. (Rommes Cert. at ~~38-42). Rommes certifies that it was the intent of the parties during negotiations that the terms of the 2019-2023 CNA would continue unless the parties agreed to change them, and neither party sought to change the 100% employer-paid retiree health benefits. (Rommes Cert. at ~~51-56, ~~67-69). Rommes certifies that as the PBA’s negotiations representative he never would have executed the MOA and the PBA never would have ratified it if they had known the Borough had changed its position on whether the employer-paid retiree health benefits of the 2019-2023 CNA would continue. (Rommes Cert. at ~~59-66). Rommes certifies there was therefore no meeting of the minds on material aspects of the MOA and a valid contract was never formed. (Rommes Cert. at ~~77-86). ¶

Chowdhury certifies that PBA members have been receiving all salary increases, any additional compensation, incentives, or stipends, and all non-economic changes to the CNA in accordance with the MOA. (Chowdhury Cert. at ~5-6). ¶

On January 15, 2026, the PBA’s counsel notified the Borough’s counsel that the PBA declined to execute the successor CNA because of the parties’ differing interpretations of Article XXV concerning retiree health benefits. (PBA Exhibit A). On January 26, the Borough’s counsel responded by disputing that the PBA had understood the CNA to require no-cost retiree health benefits, stating that in 2025 (after the MOA was ratified), the PBA engaged in “negotiations with the Borough seeking to reduce such contributions from the current Chapter 78, Tier 4 contribution rates.” (PBA Exhibit B). ¶

Arguments ¶

The Borough asserts that the PBA’s interest arbitration petition should be dismissed because there is a signed and ratified MOA in effect that is a binding contract. It argues that although “[t]he CNA provides that the Borough shall provide retirees with 100% medical insurance,” this language predates the statutorily required retiree health benefits contributions under Chapter 78 and, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.2, the PBA would have needed to negotiate back to those levels from the full Chapter 78 contribution levels. The Borough asserts that the PBA’s reliance on separation agreements with former employees providing employer-paid retiree health benefits does not change the fact the PBA did not successfully renegotiate retiree health contributions in the expired CNA or the current MOA. ¶

The PBA asserts that the MOA is void because there was no “meeting of the minds” on essential terms at the time it was signed. It argues that although the parties do not dispute the language of Article XXV of the expired CNA that continues unchanged under the MOA, they did not agree on its application. The PBA contends that the Borough had implemented retiree health benefits as understood by the PBA during the 2019-2023 contract term, so it had no reason to believe that the Borough would not continue providing 100% employer-paid retiree health benefits under the new MOA that did not change Article XXV. ¶

Analysis ¶

The Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act (Reform Act), P.L. 1995, c. 425, as amended, provides that “either party may petition the commission for arbitration on or after the date on which their [CNA] expires.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16b(2); see also N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a)(2). In Franklin Lakes Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-16, 46 NJPER 165 (¶40 2019), the Commission dismissed an interest arbitration petition because it was filed after the parties had signed an MOA that was still in effect. We held: “An MOA represents negotiated changes on the disputed issues between parties and, once signed and ratified, its terms equate to an agreement/contract.” In that case, the retiree health benefits issue sought to be submitted to interest arbitration had already been addressed in the MOA and the MOA was not contingent on the parties agreeing to future changes to retiree health benefits. ¶

In City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-84, 32 NJPER 159 (¶71 2006), the Commission dismissed an interest arbitration petition filed by the union after the parties signed and ratified an MOA, finding that the MOA covered the economic issues raised in the petition and could not be set aside. Furthermore, we found that with respect to non-economic issues sought to be submitted to interest arbitration, the record showed “that the parties agreed to carry over the terms of the PBA contract” and had agreed that “all terms of that contract would remain in effect.” ¶

Here, as in Franklin Lakes and City of Newark, it is undisputed that the MOA was signed and ratified by both parties. As the MOA’s term extends from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2028, there is not an expired agreement between the Borough and the PBA, a prerequisite for filing an interest arbitration petition. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16b(2); N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a)(2). As in City of Newark, the issues sought to be submitted to interest arbitration are all included in either the ratified MOA or in the terms of the previous CNA that are being carried over unmodified into the new contract. There is no evidence in the record that either party attempted to negotiate over the retiree health benefits contribution language contained in the 2019-2023 CNA or that they reserved that issue for future negotiations. ¶

The parties have identified a current contract dispute over how the retiree health benefits language contained in Article XXV of the CNA is to be applied vis-a-vis Chapter 78.2/ In Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 244 N.J. 1 (2020), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held, “when employees reach the Tier 4 contribution level in the first year of a CNA, they must continue to contribute at that level until they negotiate a successor CNA providing for a lower rate of contribution, and that successor CNA goes into effect.” 244 N.J. at 6.3/ Relying on Ridgefield Park, the Commission has held that contractual disputes over whether the parties agreed to change the level of retiree health benefits for a successor CNA following full implementation of the Chapter 78 contributions are legally arbitrable. See, e.g., Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2023-4, 49 NJPER 117 (¶26 2022); Somerset County Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2024-19, 50 NJPER 267 (¶60 2023); and Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-10, 48 NJPER 141 (¶36 2021). ¶

The parties’ grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration and unions may seek to enforce the benefits of current retirees through binding grievance arbitration. See Voorhees Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-13, 38 NJPER 155 (44 2011), aff’d, 39 NJPER 69 (~27 App. Div. 2012). Therefore, the question of whether the Borough is violating the CNA’s retiree health benefits language by requiring PBA retirees to contribute at the Chapter 78 Tier 4 levels is appropriate for consideration by a grievance arbitrator. As in the above-cited cases, depending on factors such as the parties’ contract language, past practice, and negotiations history, the grievance arbitrator is empowered to determine what the parties agreed to in their 2019-2023 CNA regarding retiree health benefits following Chapter 78 implementation, as well as how they intended that agreement to carry forward into the 2024-2028 MOA. ¶

To nullify the MOA, which has already been in effect for more than two years, so that the parties can engage in interest arbitration over all of their previously resolved issues in addition to retiree health benefits, would be unnecessarily disruptive to the stability of labor relations between the Borough and the PBA. As the MOA is currently in effect and bars filing for interest arbitration, the PBA must instead utilize the negotiated grievance procedure to resolve the parties’ dispute over retiree health benefit contribution levels. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration filed by PBA Local 45 is dismissed. ¶

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: February 26, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ Specifically, the PBA asserts the following issues are in dispute: Term of Agreement, Wages, Health Benefit Contribution, Holidays, Uniform Allowance, Educational Incentive, Overtime, Overtime Selection, Police Training Commission License Renewal, Sick Leave, Personal Days, Terminal Leave, Detective Stipend, Bereavement Leave, Retiree Health Benefits, and Family Leave. ¶

2/ P.L. 2011, c.78 (Chapter 78) required affected public employees and retirees to contribute toward the cost of their health care benefits coverage, paying an increasing share of the premium over a four-year period (Tiers 1 through 4). N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(a). ¶

3/ See also W. Essex PBA Local 81 v. Fairfield Twp. (App. Div. 2021) (affirming grievance arbitrator’s award finding Chapter 78 Tier 4 rates remained in effect where parties did not agree to modify rates in successor CNA); and Cnty. of Passaic v. PBA Local 197 (App. Div. 2025) (affirming grievance arbitrator’s award finding that, after tier 4 was reached, the old CNA’s employer-provided retiree health benefits language became effective again when the County was unsuccessful in seeking to remove it during interest arbitration for the parties’ successor CNA). ¶