P.E.R.C. No. 2026-33, Morris Cty Prosecutor's Office

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF MORRIS, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-005 PBA LOCAL 327, Appellant/Union. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission remands an interest arbitration award setting new terms and conditions of employment between the County of Morris and PBA Local 327. The PBA alleges that the arbitrator did not adequately apply the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g factors and ignored the record evidence when he dismissed the PBA’s increased salary and eight-hour workday proposals. The Commission remands the award for further clarification and application of the 16g factors as to the Award’s analysis of the PBA’s proposal seeking an increase from a 7.5-hour workday and 37.5-work week to an 8-hour workday and 40- hour work week, and its impact on the Award’s salary increases. ¶

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 MORRIS, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-005 PBA LOCAL 327, Appellant/Union. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Appellant, Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, LLC, attorneys (Frank M. Crivelli, Esq. of counsel and on the brief, Donald C. Barbati, Esq., on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys (Matthew J. Giacobbe, Esq. and Gina L. Rabuck-Anton, Esq., of counsel and on the brief). ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 6, 2026, the PBA Local 327 appealed the January 9, 2026 interest arbitration award (Award) covering all investigative personnel below the rank of Sergeant employed by the County of Morris (County) at the County Prosecutor’s Office and represented by PBA Local 327 (PBA). The PBA and County are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with a term of January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2024. (AA at 0035).1/ ¶

On October 1, 2025, the PBA filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16(b)(2) to resolve an impasse over the terms of a successor CNA. On October 14, the Commission appointed the interest arbitrator.2/ The interest arbitrator conducted a pre-interest arbitration mediation session on October 31, at which a voluntary settlement could not be reached. (AA at 0002). Following the parties’ transmittal of final offers and their submission of certifications and exhibits, the arbitrator conducted a hearing on December 3 and 11. (Ibid.) The parties filed simultaneous briefs on December 30. (Ibid.) Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(f)(5), the arbitrator is required to render his written decision within 90 calendar days of his assignment by the Commission. On January 9, 2026, the arbitrator issued a 34-page conventional award setting the terms of a successor CNA with a term of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2027. (AA at 0034). ¶

The Award contains a statement of the arbitrator’s authority and the relevant statutory factors the law requires him to consider, along with a factual background, final offers of both parties, their respective positions, and a discussion section justifying the Award. The arbitrator made an award on five contractual provisions in dispute, as follows: ¶

1. Article VII Sick Time: ¶

Section 1 list of relatives shall be expanded to include mother-in-law, father-in-law, step children, and step parents. ¶

2. Article XI Personal Leave: ¶

Section 4 shall be changed to “Personal Days.” Reasons (a),(b) and (d) to be removed. "Personal business which cannot be attended to outside of work hours” shall remain. ¶

Section 5 list of relatives shall be expanded to include mother-in-law, father-in-law, step children, and step parents. ¶

3. Article XIV Salaries: ¶

Annual salary increases of 2% per year for 2025 and 2026, retroactive to January 1 of the respective year, along with step movement across the salary guide for each respective year, and an annual salary increases of 3% for 2027, retroactive to January 1, 2027, along with step movement across the salary guide for 2027; ¶

4. Article XVI Storm Days and Emergencies: Section 2 shall be replaced by the following language: ¶

In the event of extreme weather conditions necessitating the closing of County Offices, members will be notified via County email, personal email (provide the employee has registered to receive emergency alerts), text message, and on the County website between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Likewise, early dismissal by the Employer due to inclement weather shall be without penalty. ¶

5. Article XXVI Duration: ¶

The term of the Agreement shall be January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2027 ¶

[AA at 32-34.] ¶

All provisions of the prior CNA that were not modified by the Award remained in effect. The remaining issues in dispute were denied and dismissed. (Ibid.) ¶

This appeal ensued. The PBA filed a brief in support of its appeal, together with an appendix that included the Award, the parties’ prior CNA as well as three CNAs between the County and other PBA locals, the parties’ final offers, the parties’ cost- out of their final offers, an expert report, and the parties’ post-hearing briefs. The County filed an opposition brief and an appendix including CNAs between the County and other police Associations. ¶

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES ¶

The PBA alleges that the arbitrator did not adequately apply the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g factors and ignored the record evidence regarding the PBA’s increased salary and eight-hour workday proposals. The PBA asserts that the arbitrator’s dismissal of the PBA’s eight-hour workday / 40-hour work week proposal in its final offer (AA at 0078-0081) - namely, the arbitrator’s finding that the PBA’s proposal was not supported by the evidence and the proposal’s cost was not addressed by the PBA’s expert - is incorrect. Specifically, the PBA asserts that it proffered the following reasons in support of its eight hour work day proposal: 1. the PBA’s wage proposal was lower than it would have been had it not requested the half-hour increase to the work day; 2. the PBA’s proposal to work an eight-hour workday without a lunch break was not preempted by any law, which was not disputed by the County; 3. the PBA submitted a prior interest arbitration award which awarded a similar eight-hour workday with a 30-minute paid lunch; 4. the PBA proffered that every other County police union is compensated for an eight-hour workday with similar modifications to lunch breaks; 5. the PBA noted the parties’ history in their prior CNAs of modifying the length of workdays and lunch breaks; 6. the PBA proffered evidence that detectives employed by 18 of 21 counties, as well as detectives employed by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, State Police, and Parole Board, are compensated based on an eight-hour workday / 40-hour work week; 7. the PBA noted that the County did not provide any evidence or testimony that it could not afford the eight-hour workday proposal or that it would obstruct the County’s operations. The PBA further argues that the arbitrator did not consider its proffered evidence, namely the report and testimony of the PBA’s public finance expert, regarding the cost of its increased salary offer to include the eight-hour workday. Thus, the PBA requests that the Award, regarding the PBA’s increased salary and workday proposals be vacated and remanded, to adequately address the statutory factors. ¶

In response, the County argues that the Award should be affirmed because it properly applied the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g) factors and it is supported by the substantial credible evidence. The County asserts that its expert testified as to the increased cost of the PBA’s salary proposal based on the existing 37.5-hour work week versus the PBA’s proposed 40-hour work week. The County proffers that the cost of the PBA’s salary proposal, based on a 37.5-hour work week, would result in an increase of 18.4% versus an increase of over 36%, based on a 40-hour work week, over the term of the CNA, and these calculations were included in the County’s post-hearing briefs considered by the arbitrator. The County argues that the arbitrator, in rejecting both parties’ wage proposals and crafting his own salary award based on the credible record evidence, also considered the PBA’s increased workday proposal as it was an inherent element of its increased salary proposal. The County further argues that the Award was correct in finding that the PBA did not provide the cost-out of its increased workday proposal. The County notes that the PBA’s witness, upon cross-examination, admitted that the cost of the additional 130 hours annually worked, amounting to an increased cost of $375,000 per year over the term of the CNA, was not included in the PBA’s cost-out of the proposed contract. The PBA also notes that the PBA’s public finance expert did not analyze the impact on overtime costs from the PBA’s proposal to increase the work week from 37.5 hours to 40 hours. The County also disputes the PBA’s assertions that the County did not offer evidence that the increased workday proposal would obstruct its operations or that the County could not afford the increased hours. The County maintains that its entire argument addressed the affordability and unreasonableness of the PBA’s overall increased salary proposal, which included its increased workday proposal. ¶

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶

Our standard for reviewing interest arbitration awards is well established. We will not vacate an award unless the appellant demonstrates that: (1) the arbitrator failed to give “due weight” to the nine 16(g) factors judged relevant to the resolution of the specific dispute; (2) the arbitrator violated the standards in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 and -9; or (3) the award is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Teaneck Tp. v. Teaneck FMBA, Local No. 42, 353 N.J. Super. 298, 299 (App. Div. 2002), aff’d o.b., 177 N.J. 560 (2003)(citing Cherry Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 97-119, 23 NJPER 287 (¶28131 1997)). Because the Legislature entrusted arbitrators with weighing the evidence, we will not disturb an arbitrator’s exercise of discretion unless an appellant demonstrates that the arbitrator did not adhere to these standards. Teaneck, 353 N.J. Super. at 308-309; Cherry Hill. ¶

Arriving at an economic award is not a precise mathematical process. The treatment of the parties’ proposals involves judgment and discretion and an arbitrator will rarely be able to demonstrate that an award is the only “correct” one. See Borough of Lodi, P.E.R.C. No. 99-28, 24 NJPER 466 (¶29214 1998). Some of the evidence may be conflicting and an arbitrator’s award is not necessarily flawed because some pieces of evidence, standing alone, might point to a different result. Lodi. Therefore, within the parameters of our review standard, we will defer to the arbitrator’s judgment, discretion and labor relations expertise. City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 99-97, 26 NJPER 242 (¶30103 1999). ¶

However, within this framework, an arbitrator must provide a reasoned explanation for an award and state what statutory factors he or she considered most important in arriving at the award, and explain why they were given significant weight and how other evidence or factors were weighed and considered. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g; N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9; Union County, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-33, 28 NJPER 459 (¶33169 2002). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g) sets forth the nine applicable statutory criteria as follows: ¶

g. The arbitrator shall decide the dispute based on a reasonable determination of the issues, giving due weight to those factors listed below that are judged relevant for the resolution of the specific dispute. In the award, the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall indicate which of the factors are deemed relevant, satisfactorily explain why the others are not relevant, and provide an analysis of the evidence on each relevant factor; provided, however, that in every interest arbitration proceeding, the parties shall introduce evidence regarding the factor set forth in paragraph (6) of this subsection and the arbitrator shall analyze and consider the factor set forth in paragraph (6) of this subsection in any award: ¶

(1) The interests and welfare of the public. ¶

Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by P.L.1976, c.68 (C.40A:4-45.1 et seq.). ¶

(2) Comparison of the wages, salaries, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing the same or similar services and with other employees generally: ¶

(a) In private employment in general; provided, however, each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(b) In public employment in general; provided, however, each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(c) In public employment in the same or similar comparable jurisdictions, as determined in accordance with section 5 of P.L.1995, c.425 (C.34:13A-16.2); ¶

provided, however, that each party shall have the right to submit additional evidence concerning the comparability of jurisdictions for the arbitrator’s consideration. ¶

(3) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, inclusive of direct wages, salary, vacations, holidays, excused leaves, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, and all other economic benefits received. ¶

(4) Stipulations of the parties. ¶

(5) The lawful authority of the employer. Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by P.L.1976, c.68 (C.40A:4-45.1 et seq.). ¶

(6) The financial impact on the governing unit, its residents, the limitations imposed upon the local unit’s property tax levy pursuant to section 10 of P.L.2007, c.62 (C.40A:4-45.45), and taxpayers. When considering this factor in a dispute in which the public employer is a county or a municipality, the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall take into account, to the extent that evidence is introduced, how the award will affect the municipal or county purposes element, as the case may be, of the local property tax; a comparison of the percentage of the municipal purposes element or, in the case of a county, the county purposes element, required to fund the employees’ contract in the preceding local budget year with that required under the award for the current local budget year; the impact of the award for each income sector of the property taxpayers of the local unit; the impact of the award on the ability of the governing body to (a) maintain existing local programs and services, (b) expand existing local programs and services for which public moneys have been designated by the governing body in a proposed local budget, or (c) initiate any new programs and services for which public moneys have been designated by the governing body in a proposed local budget. ¶

(7) The cost of living. ¶

(8) The continuity and stability of employment including seniority rights and such other factors not confined to the foregoing which are ordinarily or traditionally considered in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment through collective negotiations and collective bargaining between the parties in the public service and in private employment. ¶

(9) Statutory restrictions imposed on the employer. Among the items the arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall assess when considering this factor are the limitations imposed upon the employer by section 10 of P.L.2007, c.62 (C.40A:4-45.45). ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

Upon review of the Award, the record and the parties’ submissions, and as further explained infra, we remand the matter to the arbitrator for further clarification and application of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g factors as to the Award’s analysis of the PBA’s “Final Offer Number 8” (AA at 0078-0081), modifying the CNA’s “Article XIII Work Day and Work Week” provision and seeking an increase from a 7.5-hour workday and 37.5-work week to an 8- hour workday and 40-hour work week, and its impact on the Award’s salary increases (AA at 0032-0033). In so holding, we are cognizant of the strict statutory 90-day time frame under which the arbitrator was required to issue his written decision, particularly given the voluminous record and briefs submitted by the parties. With the parties simultaneously submitting closing briefs on December 30, 2025, the arbitrator was required to issue a final binding written decision, disposing of all disputed issues, in seven business days. ¶

The PBA’s “Final Offer Number 8” included the following proposal, modifying the CNA’s Article XIII - Work Day and Work Week, in pertinent part: ¶

From the period of January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, the normal work week shall consist of seven and one-half (7½) hour workdays and a 37½ hour work week with one-half ( ½) non-work hour off for meals per day. ¶

* * * ¶

Starting on January 1, 2026, the normal work week shall consist of an eight hour (8.0) workday and a forty (40) hour work week. ¶

* * * ¶

From the date of January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, work which exceeds forty (40) hours in a week is to be considered overtime and compensated at the overtime rate (time and one-half). ¶

* * * ¶

From the date of January 1, 2026 forward, work which exceeds forty (40) hours in a week is to be considered overtime and compensated at the overtime rate (time and one-half). ¶

[AA at 0078-0079.] ¶

We note that the County’s final offer does not address or counter the PBA’s proposed modification to the CNA’s Article XIII - Work Day and Work Week. (AA at 0085-0087.) ¶

In discussing the PBA’s arguments (AA at 0019-0022), the Award acknowledged the PBA’s increased workday proposal and its connection to its increased salary proposal, stating: ¶

The Union urges the Interest Arbitrator to consider the implementation of a new salary guide. In the first year (2025), the Union proposes an increase to steps 0 through 4 of the current 13 steps by 1.0%; an increase to steps 5 through 8 by 2.0% and an increase to steps 9 through 12 by 3.0%. Thereafter all Detectives who are not on the top step of the salary guide would advance one step on the salary guide on the anniversary date of their employment. The second year of the Agreement, the Union proffers the unpaid, half hour lunch period be eliminated and for the Detectives to work an 8 hour workday. This would equate to 130 more hours annually. With this adjustment, the hourly wage would be multiplied by 2080 hours rather than 1950 hours. Thereafter, in the last two years of the salary guide the increases are the same as the first year of the Agreement. [Union Brief, p. 29-30] ¶

The Union contends that its proposed increases are reasonable. The elimination of the 30 minute unpaid lunch period justifies an increase because the Union is offering more work in exchange for a higher salary. It is mutually beneficial. There is nothing to prevent the Interest Arbitrator from awarding this aspect of the Union's proposal. There is no regulation or rule that prohibits this award and in fact, there is precedent. [PBA Local 339 and County of Mercer, IA-2020-008] The Union points to other County unions that are compensated for an 8 hour workday, as well as statewide county prosecutor detectives. There are 21 out of the 24 county detective units of county prosecutor offices working 8 hour days and 40 hour workweeks, establishing an external pattern. Moreover, the County has not provided any evidence that it does not have the ability to pay for an 8 hour workday or 40 hour workweek, nor has it presented any evidence that it would hinder the operations of the Department. [Union Brief, p. 32-37] ¶

In the Award’s analysis ( “Discussion” ) section, the increased workday/ work week proposal is addressed as follows: ¶

The Union proposed 11 changes and modifications to the Agreement in its final offer. The party proposing the change in the employment conditions bears the burden of justifying the proposed change, rather than simply seeking change without sufficient evidentiary support. The proposals by the Union regarding Vacation, Holidays, Sick Time, Personal Leave, Clothing Issuance, Health Benefits, Work Day and Work Week, and Disability Leave are not supported by evidence to necessitate a change. The cost of these proposals was not provided by the Union or its expert Dr. Caprio. There is not sufficient evidence submitted by the Union to clearly illustrate the burden on the budget or on the taxpayer to change these provisions. The Union's proposals are not supported by sufficient evidence to change the status quo or demonstrate the impact on the operation of the Department. ¶

[AA at 0029. Emphasis added.] ¶

As acknowledged in the Award summary of the PBA’s arguments, the PBA proffered myriad reasons and evidence to support its increased workday proposal, including comparable provisions in contracts with other County law enforcement unions and detectives employed by other New Jersey counties and law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the PBA’s increased workday proposal was an integral part of its increased salary proposal, adding an additional 130 hours annually to the detectives’ compensation. The PBA’s cost-out of its final offer (AA at 088) demonstrates the impact of these additional 130 hours on the detectives’ total compensation over the term of the CNA. Further, the PBA’s public finance expert’s report directly included the cost of the additional 130 minutes of work annually on the PBA’s salary proposal, stating “Cost out beginning 2026 includes an additional +/- 130 annual work hours or the equivalent of approximately 6.3% work hours.” and “Additional work effort per current headcount for 2026 is projected at $375,022, with a maximum of $408,982 (see Exhibits 27 and 28).” The PBA’s expert also testified to the cost of the eight-hour workday proposal and its effect on the PBA’s salary proposal. Thus, the Award’s finding that the cost of the PBA’s increased workday proposals “was not provided by the union or its expert” is not supported by the record evidence. Moreover, the Award could provide additional analysis, explaining which 16g factors were most applicable, for denying that proposal. ¶

The County, in its brief provides, several arguments for rejecting the PBA’s increased workday proposal. The County notes its expert’s testimony and calculations regarding the increased cost of the PBA’s proposed salary increases based on its proposed 40-hour workweek versus the current 37.5-hour workweek. (County Brief at 11, 21.) The County also disputes the PBA’s comparison to other County and state-wide detective unions who are compensated based on a eight-hour workday. (County Brief at 22.) The County asserts that it is more reasonable to maintain the PBA’s current 7.5-hour workday schedule as it is the same as in the CNA for the County’s superior officers association because they often work on matters together. (Ibid.) However, the Award does not specifically reference any of these reasons for rejecting the PBA’s workday proposal. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g requires that “[i]n the award, the arbitrator...shall indicate which of the factors are deemed relevant, satisfactorily explain why the others are not relevant, and provide an analysis of the evidence on each relevant factor.” The Award satisfies the first two conditions because it determined which factors were relevant and afforded the most weight. The Award, in granting 2% annual salary increases in the first two years of the CNA and 3% annual salary increases in the third year of the CNA, noted that “all of the [N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16g] criteria may be relevant and will be considered, not all are entitled to equal weight.” (AA at 0027). The Award then explained that it afforded more weight to 16g(1), the interests and welfare of the public, because that factor encompasses more than one criterion, specifically 16g(9)- statutory limitations and the restrictions on the public employer, 16g(5) - the lawful authority of the employer, and 16g(6)- the financial impact of an award on a governing body and taxpayers. (AA at 0027-0028). ¶

The Award then references the 16g factors in its justification for the awarded salary increases stating, “In the instant case, it is evident that the County can afford wage increases without any detrimental impact on the County, its residents and taxpayers. Dr. Caprio’s analysis presents compelling data regarding the County’s strong fiscal position...The evidence presented by the parties shows that the Union's top salary is low when measured against internal and external comparables. Additionally, the current salary guide has not kept pace with inflation and the cost of living. If the salary guide continues to fall behind the cost of living, it would have a detrimental effect on recruitment and retention of Detectives.” (AA at 0027-0029). However, the Award does not directly address whether the PBA’s increased workday proposal was factored into the Award’s salary increases. While we decline to disturb the arbitrator’s findings on 16(g) as the basis for his award of salary increases, the arbitrator shall amend his analysis of the statutory factors by further elaborating on the documentary evidence and testimony he relied on as it relates to the dismissal of the PBA’s increased workday proposal and its attendant reduction of the overall compensation awarded. We leave to the arbitrator’s discretion any determination of whether to request additional evidence from the parties as he may deem necessary and material to a just determination of the issues in dispute. See N.J.A.C. 19:16- 5.7(e). ¶

For the foregoing reasons, we remand the Award to the interest arbitrator to provide further clarification and analysis consistent with this decision. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

A. The interest arbitration Award is remanded for the arbitrator to provide clarification and application of the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g factors as to the Award’s analysis of the PBA’s “Final Offer Number 8” (AA at 0078-0081), modifying the CNA’s “Article XIII Work Day and Work Week” provision and seeking an increase from a 7.5-hour workday and 37.5-work week to an 8- hour workday and 40-hour work week, and its impact on the Award’s salary increases (AA at 0032-0033). ¶

B. The interest arbitrator shall provide the Remand Award described in Section A of this Order within 30 days of receipt of this decision. ¶

C. We retain jurisdiction. Following receipt of the arbitrator’s Remand Award, the parties may file simultaneous responsive briefs within fourteen days of the Remand Award, limited to responding to the clarification provided by the arbitrator on remand. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: March 26, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ All citations to documents herein refer to the Appellant’s Appendix. ¶

2/ The interest arbitrator was simultaneously appointed to another interest arbitration between the Morris County Sheriff’s Office and PBA Local 298. He issued an award, which was not appealed, on January 5, 2026. Docket No. IA- 2026-006. ¶