P.E.R.C. No. 2026-4, Union Tp B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of UNION TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-087 UNION TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission dismisses an unfair practice charge filed by the Union Township Education Association against the Union Township Board of Education alleging it violated the Act by refusing to respond to an information request. The Association specifically sought a preliminary environmental report that detailed excessive levels of mold. The Commission dismisses the complaint because the final report was provided to the Association in a timely manner and the facility at issue was not occupied at the time of the information request. ¶

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 UNION TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-087 UNION TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Oxfeld Cohen, P.C., attorneys (Randi Doner April, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Taylor Law Group, LLC, attorneys (Lester E. Taylor, III, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

This matter comes before the Commission pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-6.7, which allows for the summary decision by the Commission in a case where the parties have submitted joint stipulations of fact and have waived the right to a hearing examiner’s report and recommended decision. The Union Township Education Association (Association) asserts that the Union Township Board of Education (Board) violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.,1/ when it refused to timely respond to an information request seeking a preliminary report concerning mold at the Hannah Caldwell School. ¶

The Association filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) on November 26, 2024 alleging that the Board breached its duty to furnish information relevant to collective negotiations when it admitted the existence of the preliminary mold report but did not provide it to the Association. After an exploratory conference was held, the Director of Unfair Practices issued a Complaint on the charge on January 15, 2025. The Board filed an Answer, denying the claims, on March 3. ¶

On March 17, 2025, the parties executed a waiver agreement pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-6.7. This agreement waived a hearing examiner’s report and recommended decision and was accompanied by stipulated facts, which were to constitute the entire record by which the Commission would decide whether the Board committed an unfair practice. Simultaneous briefs were submitted by each party on April 23. ¶

STIPULATIONS OF FACT ¶

The parties stipulated the following facts: ¶

1. The Union Township Board of Education (Board) is a public employer within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq. ¶

2. The Union Township Education Association (Association) represents certificated and non-certificated employees employed by the Board. ¶

3. The Board and the Association are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) that expires on August 30, 2025. ¶

4. During the 2024-2025 school year, the Board contracted with a private company (PC) to perform an inspection on the state of Hannah Caldwell School. ¶

5. On/around October 2024, the Association requested the initial/preliminary report issued to the Board by the PC. ¶

6. In response, the Board indicated that the PC’s draft report was not subject to disclosure and that the final report would be provided to the Association. ¶

7. On/around November 26, 2024, the Association filed the underlying unfair practice charge bearing docked number CO- 2025-087. ¶

8. On/around January 31, 2025, the Board provided the Association with the PC’s final report. ¶

The final report is attached to the Board’s brief as Exhibit 7. It finds that the purpose of the inspection was to “identify visible mold growth, signs of moisture, and areas susceptible to mold development.” Bd.’s br. at Ex. 7, p. 4. The testing and inspection revealed a “pervasive issue” where “60% to 90% of the building’s rooms showed significant contamination.” Id. at 5. The report further documented that water intrusion “likely exacerbated the spread of contaminants throughout the building.” Id. ¶

The final report, dated January 13, 2025, provides an inspection timeline, noting that an initial inspection took place on September 17, 2024 and a follow-up inspection occurred on October 14. Id. The investigation further continued with a “third report/phase three” which was produced on December 3. Id. The phase three report was attached to the final inspection report and was provided to the Association. Jt. Stip. ¶8. ¶

For purposes of this decision, we also accept the Association’s assertion in its unfair practice charge that the school was closed for the 2024-2025 school year. ¶

ARGUMENTS ¶

The Association argues that the Board violated the Act when it refused to provide a preliminary environmental report that examined mold conditions in the Hannah Caldwell School. It contends that the health and safety of its members is a mandatorily negotiable subject and that the Board has an obligation to furnish information if there is a probability that the information is potentially relevant to the Association in carrying out its statutory duties. The Association further avers that the information does not fall into the narrow categories of “clearly irrelevant” or “confidential” that would permit the Board from withholding the information. ¶

The Board contends that it did not commit an unfair practice because the parties were not in active contract negotiations. Additionally, the Board argues that the information sought by the Association was a draft, protected by the deliberative process privilege according to the Open Public Records Act.2/ The Board also states that since it provided the final report to the Association, and no irreparable harm occurred, the issue is now moot. The Board further avers that this request was inappropriate where there was a workers’ compensation claim related to mold, and that the information request at issue would have provided confidential information to counsel for the individual Association member’s litigation. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

The Commission finds that the Board did not violate the Act by delaying its response to the Association’s information request until the final report was compiled. Because the final inspection report also contained the results of the preliminary inspection, and the school was not occupied during the relevant time period, we find that the delay in providing the inspection report was reasonable and that the preliminary report, alone, was irrelevant to the Association’s statutory duties under the circumstances. ¶

Public employers are prohibited from “[r]efusing 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. . . .” N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(5). A determination that a party has refused to negotiate in good faith will depend upon an analysis of the overall conduct and attitude of the party charged. Teaneck Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2011-33, 36 NJPER 403 (¶156 2010). A refusal to supply potentially relevant information may constitute a refusal to negotiate in good faith in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4a(5) and derivatively a(1). State Operated School District, City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-14, 43 NJPER 106 (¶32 2016). The Commission has jurisdiction to decide whether information requested under the Act is relevant and is the appropriate forum to resolve such questions. Id.; see also, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. ¶

In In re Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 144 N.J. 511, 530-531 (1996), our Supreme Court noted the following regarding union requests for information: ¶

[A]n employer must supply information if [there is] a probability that the information is potentially relevant and that it will be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties. Thus, unions are entitled to a broad range of potentially useful information. PERC requires every public employer to provide its employee’s union with the information that the union needs to evaluate the merits of an employee’s complaint about employer conduct unless such information is clearly irrelevant or confidential. ¶

[citations omitted]. ¶

A majority representative has a broad right to obtain information from an employer to effectively represent and negotiate on behalf of its negotiations unit. PERC, as affirmed by the courts, uses what is essentially a discovery standard in determining whether an employer must provide sought information. See, e.g., Mt. Holly Bd. of Ed., et al., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-6, 45 NJPER 103 (¶27 2018) (citing State of N.J. (OER), P.E.R.C. No. 88-27, 13 NJPER 752 (¶18284 1987), recon. den., P.E.R.C. No. 88-45, 13 NJPER 841 (¶18323 1987), aff’d, State v. Communs. Workers of Am. (App. Div. 1988)). The first question is whether the report has a probability of containing potentially relevant information to the Association’s statutory duties. ¶

Here, the information in the preliminary report concerns the results of an inspection for mold of a building where negotiations unit members work. We take administrative notice that mold, at elevated levels, can cause health problems.3/ Health and safety issues are mandatorily negotiable. See Maurice River Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 87-91, 13 NJPER 123 (¶18054 1987). ¶

However, public employers are not “obligated to furnish such information in the exact form requested by the representative. It is sufficient if the information is made available in a manner not so burdensome or time-consuming as to impede the process of bargaining.” Union City, H.E. No. 83-34, 9 NJPER 251 (¶14115 1983), aff’d, P.E.R.C. No. 83-162, 9 NJPER 394 (¶14179 1983) (emphasis in original). In Union City, the Commission adopted a hearing examiner’s decision that determined draft budget worksheets were not relevant to a majority representative’s representational duties where the labor organization was provided access to the finalized municipal budget. ¶

We find there are some parallels between Union City and the instant matter. Here, the Board did not deny the Association access to the preliminary mold inspection report. Rather, it delayed providing the report until the environmental science company compiled all the test results, analysis and recommendations into a final product. This is akin to the employer’s action in Union City, where the employer provided the budget in its final version, and not in an earlier version or piecemeal fashion. We also find that the three-month delay in providing the finalized test results, analysis, and recommendations was reasonable under these circumstances. Further, the Association was aware the building was closed due to mold and there was no risk of continued mold exposure. ¶

Given all the above considerations, we find that the preliminary inspection report, alone, was not relevant to the Association’s statutory duties. Thus, the Board did not violate the Act by waiting to provide the finalized report. We are not ruling that preliminary or draft inspection reports need never be produced. Our review is on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the failure to produce information constitutes a refusal to negotiate in good faith. We need not reach the Board’s additional arguments. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Complaint is dismissed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: August 28, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ 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. . . .(5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶

2/ See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to-13. ¶

3/ See “Mold in the Workplace – Prevention and Control,” (May 2006 Bulletin, New Jersey Public Employees Occupational Safety and Health Program, https://www.nj.gov/health/workplacehealthandsafety/documents /peosh/moldib.pdf) ¶