P.E.R.C. No. 2026-39, Camden Cty Judiciary

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CAMDEN COUNTY JUDICIARY and OPEIU, LOCAL 32 Respondents, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-027 SYLVIA COLE, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Sylvia Cole’s appeal of the dismissal of an unfair practice charge filed against her former employer, Camden County Judiciary, and her majority representative, OPEIU, Local 21. Cole alleges that the Judiciary retaliated against her for protected activity under the Act and interfered with those rights when it imposed discipline against her. She also alleges that OPEIU breached its duty of fair representation when it did not process a grievance for a 2- day suspension. The Commission affirms the Director of Unfair Practices’ dismissal of the charge, finding: (1) that the UPC did not establish that the Judiciary knew she engaged in protected activity and that disciplinary disputes are generally not reviewed by the Commission and (2) OPEIU’s initial delay and subsequent decision not to file a grievance over a 2-day suspension for a former employee was not a breach of the duty of fair representation. ¶

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 CAMDEN COUNTY JUDICIARY and OPEIU, LOCAL 32 Respondents, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-027 SYLVIA COLE, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Sylvia Cole, pro se ¶

For the Respondent, Meryl G. Nadler, Esq., Counsel to the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts (Thomas Russo, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, OPEIU, Local 21, no appearance ¶

Decision ¶

On January 26, 2026, Sylvia Cole appealed from the December 31 decision of the Director of Unfair Practices (Director), who declined to issue a complaint on her Unfair Practice Charge (UPC). The UPC, filed on December 17, 2025 and amended on December 29, alleged that the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 32 (OPEIU) violated subsections 5.4b(1), (3) and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., when it did not contest a two-day suspension imposed by her employer, the Camden County Judiciary (Judiciary). Cole also alleged that the Judiciary violated subsections 5.4a(1), (2), (3), (5), and (7)2/ by violating the collective negotiations agreement (CNA) between the Judiciary and OPEIU, not completing an adequate investigation into her alleged misconduct, and constructively discharging her from employment. ¶

Cole’s initial filing contained substantive errors regarding respondent names and did not identify the specific provisions of the Act allegedly violated. The Director issued a “Defect Letter” instructing Cole to correct those deficiencies and to provide a “clear and concise statement of facts” supporting her claims, and advised her of the applicable six-month statute of limitations.3/ We summarize Cole’s amended UPC as follows. ¶

On June 2, 2025, Cole was involved in an incident at work that led the Judiciary to initiate disciplinary proceedings.4/ The next day, Cole met with her supervisor, an assistant division manager, and a union representative. After meeting again with her union representative on June 6, Cole emailed a written rebuttal statement describing the incident. Cole asserts she was denied a meeting with vicinage managers and other involved individuals, and that no full nor fair investigation occurred. On June 17, she was served with a Notice of Disciplinary Action imposing a two-day suspension without pay. ¶

Cole states that she informed her union representative that she wished to challenge the discipline. On June 18, 2025, an email was sent to the OPEIU President, Mary Short, and the union vice president advising them of Cole’s intent to contest the suspension. ¶

On June 26, 2025, Cole resigned from her position, asserting that the work environment had become intolerable due to “false accusations, a lack of a fair investigation, being falsely accused again, and with the other charges that were allowed to be added against me.” She contends these actions also violated the CNA. ¶

On July 18, 2025, Cole called Short to ask whether she received the June 18 email. Short said she had not.5/ Short later located the email but informed Cole it was too late to take action. According to Cole, Short contacted the Judiciary Human Resources, who confirmed nothing had been submitted on Cole’s behalf. Short then advised Cole there was nothing more she could do, but that Cole could apply for other jobs in Camden. ¶

The Director dismissed Cole’s charge in its entirety. Claims under subsections 5.4a(2), 5.4a(5), and 5.4b(3) were dismissed because individuals do not possess standing to bring such claims. Claims under subsections 5.4a(7) and 5.4b(5) were dismissed because the UPC did not allege a violation of any specific Commission rule or regulation. Claims under 5.4a(1), 5.4a(3) and 5.4b(1) were dismissed because Cole resigned in June 2025 and the Commission lacks jurisdiction over any claims against a former employer or majority representative absent a nexus to a current labor dispute or unfair practice. ¶

This appeal followed. Cole only appeals the 5.4b(1) allegation against OPEIU. Although she asserts the Judiciary committed unfair practices, she did not specify which allegations she seeks to be reviewed. Because she did not assert that a PERC rule or regulation was violated, we treat her appeal as limited to claims under subsections 5.4a(1) and 5.4a(3). Cole filed a letter brief and exhibits. The Judiciary filed a brief in opposition. OPEIU was served on January 29, 2026 but did not file a response. ¶

Cole argues that a complaint should have been issued against OPEIU because it breached its duty of fair representation when it did not appeal her suspension due to a missed email. Cole also contends that the Judiciary committed an unfair practice by improperly disciplining her, failing to conduct a proper investigation, and violating the CNA. ¶

The Judiciary argues that it does not owe Cole a duty of fair representation and that her contractual claims fall outside the Commission’s unfair practice jurisdiction. ¶

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. The issue is whether Cole alleged sufficient facts, that, if true, would constitute a breach of OPEIU’s duty of fair representation and whether the Judiciary engaged in conduct constituting an unfair practice. We affirm the Director’s dismissal. ¶

(a) Claims against the Judiciary ¶

Cole’s retaliation claim under subsection 5.4a(3) was properly dismissed. ¶

Protected activity includes conduct in connection with collective negotiations, grievance processing, contract interpretation or administration, or other related activity on behalf of a union or individual. North Brunswick Bd. of Educ. v. North Brunswick Educ. Sec’ ys Ass’n (App. Div. 1979), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 79-14, 4 NJPER 451 (¶4205 1978). While Cole requested that OPEIU file a grievance, there is no allegation that the Judiciary was aware of that intent. In fact, the UPC alleges that her employer had not received any filing related to the grievance. ¶

We further find the amended UPC does not establish the necessary elements supporting Cole’s claim that the Judiciary interfered with her rights under the Act. A public employer violates section 5.4a(1) of the Act if its action tends to interfere with an employee’s statutory rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial business justification. Mine Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 86-145, 12 NJPER 526 (¶17197 1986); NJ Sports & Exposition Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 80-73, 5 NJPER 550 (¶10285 1979). Cole alleges that the Judiciary improperly investigated her conduct and suspended her in violation of the CNA — then caused her constructive discharge from employment. This Commission, in general, does not review disciplinary actions, and Cole’s discipline, both the two-day suspension and the alleged constructive discharge, were subject to review through the parties’ negotiated disciplinary procedures. See, e.g., State of New Jersey, (Kearney), P.E.R.C. No. 2025-19, 51 NJPER 175 (¶44 2024). Thus, we affirm the Director’s dismissal of these claims. ¶

(b) Claims against OPEIU ¶

The amended UPC does not establish that OPEIU breached its duty of fair representation. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) prohibits an employee organization from “interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act.” An employee organization violates this proscription when its action tends to interfere with protected rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial organizational justification. FOP, Lodge No. 12 (Colisanti), P.E.R.C. No. 90-65, 16 NJPER 126 (¶21049 1990). ¶

Section 5.3 of the Act empowers a union to negotiate collectively and administer the CNA on behalf of all unit employees. With that exclusive authority comes the duty to fairly represent all unit employees in negotiations and contract administration. A breach of the duty of fair representation occurs when a union’s conduct towards a member of the negotiations unit is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Lullo v. IAFF, 55 N.J. 409 (1970); D’ Arrigo v. New Jersey State Bd. of Mediation, 119 N.J. 74, 76 (1990); Belen v. Woodbridge Tp. Bd. of Ed., 142 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 1976); see also Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). “The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected” and “[a] wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in servicing the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.” PBA Local 187, P.E.R.C. No. 2005-78, 31 NJPER 173 (¶70 2005) (citing Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 337-338 (1953)). A breach of the duty of fair representation violates subsection 5.4b(1) of the Act. ¶

While “[a] union must exercise reasonable care and diligence in investigating, processing, and presenting grievances; and must evaluate the merits of requests for arbitration in good faith,” “[p]roof of union negligence, poor judgment, or even ineptitude, standing alone, does not suffice to prove a breach of the duty of fair representation.” State of New Jersey Judiciary (Administrative Office of the Courts), P.E.R.C. No. 2026-9, 52 NJPER 100 (¶25 2025) (citations omitted); N.J. Turnpike Auth. (Papajani), P.E.R.C. No. 2022-38, 48 NJPER 393 (¶90 2022) (citations omitted). ¶

Here, Cole alleges in the amended UPC, and provides documentary evidence on appeal, that her OPEIU representative sent an email to OPEIU President Short, informing her that Cole wished to appeal her two-day suspension. Cole also alleges that Short was negligent when she missed the email and never took action in processing the appeal, even after Cole personally informed her of the missed email and reiterated her request to contest her suspension. ¶

Short’s initial inaction in filing a grievance after missing an email related to minor discipline was “mere negligence” that, alone, does not rise to an unfair practice. Short’s further inaction on the grievance once personally notified of Cole’s desire to contest her two-day suspension was also not an unfair practice where Cole was already a former employee, having resigned relatively quickly after being served with the two-day suspension. Thus, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith for OPEIU to decline to process the grievance for a 2-day suspension for a resigned member where the time and costs of challenging the suspension would outweigh the available relief to Cole. The Director’s dismissal of this charge is affirmed. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Director’s letter dismissal of the amended UPC is affirmed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey, Higgins, Hines, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioner Eaton was not present. ¶

ISSUED: May 28, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ Employee organizations, their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; (3) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a public employer, if they are the majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit; (5) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission. ¶

2/ Public employers, their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization; (3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; (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; and (7) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission. ¶

3/ N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3(a)3 requires filers to provide “[a] clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice. The statement must specify the date and place the alleged acts occurred, the names of the persons alleged to have committed such acts, the subsection(s) of the Act alleged to have been violated, and the relief sought.” ¶

4/ The UPC record does not identify the nature of the incident, but on appeal, Cole provided the Judiciary’s notice of discipline outlining allegations that Cole was insubordinate, failed to perform her duties, and neglected her duty. ¶

5/ On appeal, Cole provided a copy of this email. ¶