P.E.R.C. No. 2026-38, Atlantic Cty Pros Office

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-012 MAINLAND PBA, LOCAL 77 (SOA), Petitioner. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office’s (ACPO) motion to dismiss the SOA’s Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration (IA petition). The Commission finds that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16b(2) and N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a)(1)-(2), either party may file an IA petition on after the date the collective negotiations agreement (CNA) expires. Therefore, the Commission finds that failure of the parties to comply with the Act’s requirement to commence negotiations at least 120 days prior to contract expiration does not preclude the filing of an IA petition after CNA expiration. The Commission further finds that unfair practice proceedings are the mechanism for addressing alleged refusals to negotiate prior to contract expiration, but do not operate as a bar to filing an IA petition upon CNA expiration. ¶

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 ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-012 MAINLAND PBA, LOCAL 77 (SOA), Petitioner. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Blaney, Weinberg, & Curio, P.C., attorneys (William G. Blaney, Esq., of counsel) ¶

For the Petitioner, Sciarra, Catrambone, Curran & Gray, LLC, attorneys (Christopher A. Gray, Esq., of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 2, 2026, Mainland PBA, Local 77 (SOA) filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration (IA) for a successor collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office (ACPO).1/ On February 26, the ACPO filed an unfair practice charge seeking to restrain the IA process.2/ On March 13, the ACPO filed a motion to dismiss the SOA’s petition.3/ On March 20, the SOA filed a brief opposing the motion and a cross-motion for costs and fees. On April 2, the ACPO sought leave to file a reply brief, which was granted with an opportunity for the SOA to file a sur-reply. On April 6, the ACPO filed its reply, and on April 7, the SOA filed its sur-reply. The following facts appear. ¶

The SOA represents a unit of nine (9) Detective Lieutenants and Detective Captains. The IA petition states that the parties’ CNA expired on December 31, 2025, and reflects that no negotiation sessions were held prior to expiration. The petition identifies the following economic issues in dispute: salary, overtime, on-call compensation, call-in pay, and commander compensation. ¶

The ACPO seeks dismissal of the IA petition, asserting that the parties have not engaged in three (3) negotiation sessions prior to the SOA’s filing for IA. It contends that the IA statute requires at least three sessions before invoking IA and that this requirement applies regardless of when the petition is filed. According to ACPO, the SOA’s filing violates the IA Act and is inconsistent with precedent requiring a good-faith effort to negotiate before invoking IA. The ACPO further argues that Commission regulations permitting filing upon contract expiration do not eliminate the three-session requirement or authorize parties to bypass negotiations entirely. ¶

The SOA responds that, although the parties did not meet before the contract expired, Commission rules expressly permit either party to file for IA after expiration. It further asserts that the ACPO never sought to initiate negotiations prior to expiration. The SOA also argues that the ACPO’s motion was filed 38 days after the petition, which is beyond the statutory five-day period to file an answer, and that the ACPO cannot establish a refusal to negotiate where it never demanded negotiations as required by the Act. ¶

The SOA additionally notes that, following the filing of its petition, the parties participated in mediation sessions and contends that dismissal would delay the statutorily streamlined IA process. It seeks costs and fees, asserting that the ACPO did not satisfy pre-IA statutory and regulatory requirements and has not demonstrated bad faith on its part. ¶

The ACPO replies that the SOA overstates the extent of mediation, asserting that only one and one-half days of mediation occurred and those sessions would not have taken place had the petition been rejected. It further contends that the SOA’s timeliness arguments are misplaced because the cited regulations apply to unfair practice charges filed prior to CNA expiration and do not govern motion practice. The ACPO maintains that it did not cause a delay and that it acted diligently upon the arbitrator’s assignment. It also opposes the request for fees, arguing that N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(b) applies only to pre-expiration unfair practice charges, not post-expiration proceedings. ¶

The SOA responds that the ACPO has neither demonstrated a refusal to negotiate nor filed a Notice of Intent to Commence Negotiations, and to date, has not requested negotiations. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

The Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act (Reform Act), P.L. 1995, c. 425, as amended, is codified at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14 through -21. The Act requires public employers and exclusive representatives of police and fire units to commence negotiations at least 120 days prior to CNA expiration. If negotiations reach an impasse, either party may request mediation. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16a. If the impasse persists, either party may request that the Commission “invoke factfinding with recommendation for settlement of all issues in dispute.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16b(1). The statute further provides that, “[r]egardless of the mediation and factfinding procedures,” either party may petition for IA on or after the date the CNA expires. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16b(2). Commission regulations likewise permit the filing of an IA petition upon contract expiration. N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a)(1)-(2). ¶

The Act requires parties to negotiate in good faith prior to invoking impasse procedures. However, neither the Act nor the Commission’s regulations state that failure to so precludes either party from filing an IA petition. N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a) permits filing an IA petition on or after CNA expiration and does not impose a condition precedent of three negotiation sessions. We decline to read such a requirement into the statute. ¶

This interpretation is consistent with longstanding Commission practice. The Division of Conciliation and Arbitration processes IA petitions filed upon contract expiration without requiring a threshold showing that a specified number of negotiation sessions occurred. The structure of the Act also supports this approach. It provides a mechanism - through unfair practice proceedings - to address alleged refusals to negotiate prior to CNA expiration, while separately authorizing IA upon expiration. Read together, these provisions establish a sequential framework for enforcing negotiation obligations and resolving impasse, rather than one in which pre-expiration conduct operates as a bar to filing an IA petition upon CNA expiration. The ACPO did not avail itself of the pre-expiration process and cannot rely on that omission to defeat the petition. ¶

The ACPO’s reliance on City of Newark and Newark Identification Officers Ass’n, P.E.R.C. No. 2006-84, 32 NJPER 159 (¶71 2006), is misplaced. In Newark, the association sought to initiate IA, asserting that its prior CNA had expired in 2000. The city moved to dismiss, contending that the parties had negotiated and ratified a successor CNA extending through 2008. The record showed that, in 2004, the parties reached agreement on salary and benefits, and the association’s president executed a memorandum incorporating those terms while continuing the remaining provisions of the prior CNA. The Commission found that the association ratified the agreement, that the city reasonably relied on that ratification, and that the parties thereafter operated under its terms. Concluding that a valid CNA remained in effect and that the parties were not at impasse, the Commission dismissed the IA petition. Although the decision referenced the Act’s pre-expiration three-meeting requirement, that mention was not essential to the holding and did not establish a prerequisite filing requirement. ¶

Here, the IA petition was properly filed upon CNA expiration pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(a). While parties are encouraged to avail themselves of the Act’s and IA regulation’s mechanisms for negotiations prior to CNA expiration, it is undisputed that neither party took advantage of those opportunities. Both parties therefore forwent the opportunity to pursue pre- expiration unfair practice remedies. It is for this reason that we deny the SOA’s request for costs and fees. N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.2(b)(2) applies only where a party prevails on an unfair practice charge alleging a refusal to negotiate filed prior to CNA expiration. See, e.g., City of Newark and Newark Police SOA, P.E.R.C. No. 2025-17, 51 NJPER 169 (¶42 2024)(granting summary judgment to the SOA on a refusal to negotiate claim arising within 120 days prior to CNA expiration, but denying costs and fees where both parties did not strictly comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory negotiation requirements). ¶

Under these circumstances, we decline to construe the Act as imposing a mandatory precondition requiring dismissal of a petition filed upon CNA expiration. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The ACPO’s motion to dismiss the interest arbitration petition is denied. ¶

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: April 23, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ We take administrative notice that on February 2, 2026, PBA Local 77 (Rank and File Detectives) and PBA Local 77 (Detective Sergeants) also filed IA petitions indicating those CNAs also expired on December 31, 2025. Docket Nos. IA-2026-13 and -14. These petitions indicate three (3) negotiation dates. ¶

2/ The ACPO’s charge, Docket No. CE-2026-007, is being procesed in the normal course. ¶

3/ ACPO also filed a motion to dismiss IA-2026-14 that it subsequently withdrew as the parties successfully reached a successor CNA during the interest arbitration process. ¶