P.E.R.C. No. 2026-36, E Windsor Reg B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of EAST WINDSOR REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-030 UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 424, Respondents, -and- DANIEL KAZAR, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission sustains the Deputy Director of Unfair Practices’ dismissal of an unfair practice charge (UPC) filed by Kazar against his employer (Board) and union (UPSEU). The charge alleges that the Board violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., by denying him promotions and accusing him of “stealing time” after he successfully contested his termination through grievance arbitration and was reinstated. The charge alleges that the UPSEU violated the Act by failing to file grievances or pursue arbitration over his complaints against the Board and failing to enforce the health benefits reimbursement portion of the arbitration award that reinstated him. The Commission finds that all of Kazar’s allegations against the Board and UPSEU occurred well beyond the six-month statute of limitations for filing an unfair practice charge. Specifically, the Commission finds that the alleged failure to comply with or enforce the health benefits reimbursement of the 2022 arbitration award was not a continuing violation and that Kazar failed to file his UPC within six months of the end of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction over any remaining disputes over remedial relief. ¶

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 EAST WINDSOR REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-030 UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 424, Respondents, -and- DANIEL KAZAR, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Daniel Kazar, pro se ¶

DECISION ¶

On January 17 and 22, 2026, the Charging Party (Kazar) filed an appeal and an amended appeal of the Deputy Director of Unfair Practices’ January 12, 2026 letter dismissing his unfair practice charge (UPC).1/ Kazar initially filed his UPC on December 26, 2025. After receiving a defect letter from the Deputy Director, he filed an amended UPC on January 12, 2026. ¶

Kazar’s amended UPC alleges that his employer, the East Windsor Regional Board of Education (Board), violated subsections 5.4a(1) and (3)2/ of the New Jersey Public Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq. (Act), by retaliating against him in the form of denying him promotions following his reinstatement after he successfully contested his November 9, 2019, termination through grievance arbitration. The UPC also alleges that the Board accused Kazar of “stealing time” as harassment and retaliation for his reinstatement. The charge further alleges that Kazar’s union, the United Public Service Employees Union, Local 424 (UPSEU), violated subsection 5.4b(1) and 5.4b(5)3/ of the Act by failing to file grievances or pursue arbitration concerning the Board’s alleged retaliation, failure to promote, and harassment/false accusation. The UPC also alleges that the UPSEU arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith failed to enforce a binding arbitration award issued on February 10, 2022, which reinstated him and ordered remedial relief. ¶

The Deputy Director’s January 12, 2026 letter dismissed Kazar’s 5.4b(5) allegation because his UPC did not cite a Commission rule or regulation that was violated. The Deputy Director dismissed the remaining allegations for failing to “provide a clear and concise statement of the facts forming the basis of your legal and factual claims against the Respondents” as required by N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3(a)(3). The Deputy Director further found that, based on the UPC and amended UPC as is, the allegations all relate to events occurring between 2019 and 2023 - well beyond the six-month statute of limitations applicable to a UPC filed December 26, 2025. ¶

The Commission has authority to issue a complaint where it appears that a charging party’s allegations, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c; N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. Where no complaint is issued, the charging party may appeal to the Commission, which may sustain the refusal to issue a complaint or may direct that further action be taken. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c establishes a six-month statute of limitations period for the filing of unfair practice charges. However, “[t]he Act does not rigidly bar relief on all causes of action arising more than six months before a charge was filed.” State of New Jersey (Juvenile Justice) and Judy Thorpe, P.E.R.C. No. 2014-71, 40 NJPER 512 (¶164 2014), aff’d, 43 NJPER 353 (¶100 App. Div. 2017), certif. den. 231 N.J. 211 (2017). A charge may still be filed if the charging party was “prevented” from filing a charge on time and the six month period will not begin to run until the charging party was “no longer so prevented.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. Relevant considerations include whether a charging party sought timely relief in another forum; whether the respondent fraudulently concealed and misrepresented the facts establishing an unfair practice; when a charging party knew or should have known the basis for its claim; and how long a time has passed between the contested action and the charge. Kaczmarek v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 77 N.J. 329, 340 (1978); Lakewood Tp. (Schulman), P.E.R.C. No. 2020-25, 46 NJPER 234 (¶55 2019); State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-56, 29 NJPER 93 (¶26 2003); and Hoboken Teachers Ass’n, P.E.R.C No. 91-110, 17 NJPER 331(¶22145 1991). ¶

Here, as Kazar’s initial UPC was filed on December 26, 2025, all allegations against the Board and UPSEU concerning their actions prior to June 26, 2025 are barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, Kazar’s allegations concerning denied promotions in retaliation for his successful arbitration occurred in 2021-2022. The allegations concerning false accusations of stealing time occurred in 2022-2023. As all of those allegations concern actions well beyond the six-month statute of limitations, we find them to be untimely pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. ¶

In his appeal, Kazar asserts that the Board’s alleged failure to provide him with medical reimbursement as ordered by the February 10, 2022, arbitration award reinstating him, and the UPSEU’s alleged failure to seek to enforce that award, are continuing violations that toll the statute of limitations. Kazar submitted a copy of the arbitration award along with his UPC. In addition to ordering his reinstatement, the award ordered backpay and benefits, including medical reimbursements for any additional health insurance premiums paid during the period of separation and any additional out-of-pocket medical payments. The award was issued on February 10, 2022, and the arbitrator retained jurisdiction until “May 16, 2022, or until such other date mutually agreeable, over any remedial relief issues which remain in dispute between the parties.” Even if the Board had not provided the medical reimbursements ordered by the arbitration award, and even if the UPSEU arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith declined to pursue enforcement on Kazar’s behalf, Kazar would have known of the alleged unfair practice violations by May 16, 2022, when the arbitrator no longer retained jurisdiction of remedial relief issues. ¶

Given the nature of the allegations - failure to comply with (employer) and failure to seek to enforce (union) an aspect of an arbitration award concerning reimbursement of medical costs incurred while separated from employment - there is no continuing violation that would justify tolling the six-month statute of limitations. The continuing violation theory is not applicable where “the claim is not based on new alleged violations, but rather on the effect of an earlier alleged violation.” State of N.J. (Dept. of Corrections), P.E.R.C. No. 93-80, 19 NJPER 207 (¶24097 1993); see also Salem Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 87-159, 13 NJPER 584 (¶18216 1987). Once Kazar was reinstated pursuant to the arbitration award, the alleged medical reimbursement owed was a past event with a finite amount, not a repeated violation. Therefore, the alleged failure to comply with or enforce the arbitration award was a distinct event that should have been known by the May 16, 2022, date to which the arbitrator retained jurisdiction. A timely UPC would have needed to be filed within six months of that date, i.e., by November 16, 2022. As the UPC was not filed until December 26, 2025, we concur with the Deputy Director’s determination that his allegations are untimely pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. Moreover, Kazar’s submissions do not demonstrate that he was prevented from timely filing unfair practice charges concerning his allegations. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Charging Party’s unfair practice charge against the Board and UPSEU is dismissed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: April 23, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ Neither Respondent filed a response to the appeal. ¶

2/ 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 “(3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the act.” ¶

3/ These provision prohibit employee organizations, 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) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission.” ¶