P.E.R.C. No. 2026-40, South Orange - Maplewood B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-018 SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants in part, and denies in part, the Board’s petition to restrain binding arbitration of three grievances filed by the Association. The Association’s grievances contest the Board’s scheduling of professional development (PD) days prior to September, as well as the total number of PD days scheduled and the dates on which those PD days are scheduled during the 2025-2026 school year. The Commission finds that the grievances are not legally arbitrable to the extent they challenge the Board’s decision to schedule a PD day in September prior to the start of the student school year, as it would infringe on the Board’s managerial prerogative to determine the student calendar. However, the Commission finds that the specific date selected for the pre- school-year PD is legally arbitrable. The Commission also finds that, in the absence of an articulated dominant educational policy reason for allegedly increasing the number of PD days, the total number of PD days scheduled, as well as when they are scheduled during the student school year, is legally arbitrable. ¶

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 SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-018 SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano, Carrigg, Lang & Casey, LLC, attorneys (Patrick F. Carrigg, of counsel; Victoria R. Lang, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Selikoff & Cohen, P.A., attorneys (Keith Waldman, of counsel and on the brief; Liz Pudel, on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On November 19, 2025, the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education (Board) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of three grievances filed by the South Orange-Maplewood Education Association (Association or SOMEA). The grievances assert that the Board violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA) by scheduling a faculty-only professional development (PD) day prior to September. The grievances also contest the total number of PD days, as well as the dates on which those days were scheduled for the 2025-2026 school year. ¶

The Board filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of its Superintendent. The Association filed a brief and the certification of its Chairperson for the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee. These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents certified teaching staff members and non-certified support staff members. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA with a term of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Article XX of the CNA is entitled “Employee Work Year.” Article XX.A. provides the “in-school work year for teachers on a ten (10) month basis” as consisting of: ¶

• “One hundred-eight three (183) days which pupils are in attendance” ; ¶

• “One (1) additional day for fall orientation program” ; ¶

• “One (1) day for closing school following the last day of pupil attendance” ; ¶

• “Two (2) days for the professional development of teachers to be scheduled during the course of the instructional year” ; ¶

• “A total of four (4) days for orientation of new teachers prior to school opening” ; and ¶

• “full days for teachers” on “The last two (2) student days in June.” ¶

Article XX.C.1. of the CNA provides: “All supportive employees on a ten (10) or eleven (11) month schedule should report for work on September 1st or the day after Labor Day, whichever is earlier.” Article XXI.A.6.e.3. references “the start of school in September” regarding when high school teachers must have evening activity calendars ready. Article XXI.D.1.a. of the CNA refers to the “Regular Work Day” for secretaries as occurring from “September 1st - June 30th.” ¶

The Superintendent certifies that on or about February 27, 2025, the Board approved the school calendar for the 2025-2026 school year. The approved calendar established two PD days, on Wednesday, August 27 and Thursday, August 28, 2025, followed by a 4-day Labor Day weekend and then the first day of school for students on September 2, 2025.1/ The calendar also established PD half days on October 14, 2025, November 4, 2025, January 13, 2026, February 24, 2026, and April 14, 2026. ¶

On August 15, 2025, the Association submitted a Level III grievance to the Superintendent asserting that the 2025-2026 school calendar violates the CNA by establishing August 27, 2025 as the first day for teachers to report for PD. As a remedy, the grievance sought a new school calendar in which teachers’ first workday occurs in September, compensation for attendance on August 27 and 28, 2025, and any other make whole remedies. ¶

On August 25, the Superintendent e-mailed the Association President a grievance response that partially sustained the grievance by making the second pre-student school year PD day (Thursday, August 28) “a nonmandatory day for staff to work on their classrooms” while maintaining the mandatory PD day scheduled for Wednesday, August 27. ¶

On or about August 27, 2025, the Association elevated three Level IV grievances, one entitled “Teacher Start Date Violation” concerning the start of the teacher work year prior to September, one entitled “Professional Development Violation” alleging that the number of PD days scheduled for the 2025-2026 school year is contractually prohibited, and one entitled “Work Year Violation (11-Month Employees)” asserting that on August 13, 2025 the Board violated Article XX.C. of the CNA when it advised 11-month employees that they needed to report to work ten days prior to the start of the student school year. ¶

On September 25, 2025, the Board denied all three Association grievances, followed by explanations of the denials on October 3. The Board’s counsel stated that the Association’s grievance seeking to prevent the work year from starting before September interferes with the Board’s prerogative to establish the school calendar.2/ He further stated that “Professional development during teacher orientation and on half days throughout the school year is consistent with past practice” and that the Superintendent had granted the Association’s request for August 28, 2025 to be an optional day. On November 12, the Association filed a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators. This petition ensued. ¶

Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), articulates the standards for determining whether a subject is mandatorily negotiable: ¶

[A] subject is negotiable between public employers and employees when (1) the item intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To decide whether a negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy, it is necessary to balance the interests of the public employees and the public employer. When the dominant concern is the government’s managerial prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees’ working conditions. ¶

[Id. at 404-405]. ¶

“Questions concerning whether subjects are mandatorily negotiable should be made on a case-by-case basis.” Troy v. Rutgers, 168 N.J. 354, 383 (2001). We must balance the parties’ interests in light of the particular facts and arguments presented. City of Jersey City v. Jersey City POBA, 154 N.J. 555, 574-575 (1998). ¶

The Commission’s inquiry on a scope of negotiations petition is quite narrow. We are addressing a single issue in the abstract: whether the subject matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. The merits of the Association’s claimed violation of the agreement, as well as the Board’s contractual defenses, are not in issue, because those are matters for the arbitrator to decide if the Commission determines that the question is one that may be arbitrated. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978). ¶

The Board asserts that the Association’s grievance is not arbitrable because the establishment of the school calendar is a non-negotiable managerial prerogative. It argues that its decision to schedule PD days prior to the start of the school year as well as on half days during the school year is not negotiable. The Board contends that because its scheduling of the PD days did not exceed the student calendar, there was no unilateral change in a negotiable term of employment. ¶

The Association asserts that its grievances are arbitrable because they concern the scheduling of the parts of the employee work year when students are not in school. It argues that the Board’s imposition of PD days goes beyond those set forth in the CNA and that the scheduling of PD days on half days when students are no longer present is a negotiable scheduling issue. The Association contends that the issue of compensation for hours worked in excess of the negotiated work year is arbitrable. ¶

N.J.S.A. 18A:36-1 provides that the “school year” for public schools “shall begin on July 1 and end on June 30.” Within that school year, a board of education “shall determine annually the dates, between which the schools of the district shall be open, in accordance with law.” N.J.S.A. 18A:36-2. It is well- established that the determination of a school calendar in terms of when school commences and terminates is a non-negotiable managerial prerogative. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Reg. H.S. Bd. of Ed., 81 N.J. 582, 592 (1980); and Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed., 307 N.J. Super. 263, 270 (App. Div. 1998). ¶

However, the Commission and courts have recognized the distinction between the student calendar and faculty work schedules, noting that faculty work schedules are mandatorily negotiable to the extent negotiations do not interfere with scheduling the student school year. Burlington Cty. College Faculty Ass’n, 64 N.J. 10, 12 (1973); Troy v. Rutgers, 168 N.J. at 383; and N.J.I.T., NJPER Supp.2d 263 (¶218 App. Div. 1980), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 80-54, 5 NJPER 491, 493 (¶10251 1979). Thus, although there is nearly complete overlap between the student school year and faculty work year, “once the overall school calendar and the student days are established, negotiations over the timing and placement of non- student faculty work days within that school calendar are mandatorily negotiable unless a board can demonstrate that it would significantly interfere with educational policy goals.” Southampton Tp. Bd. of Ed., 46 NJPER 555 (¶126 App. Div. 2020), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2019-41, 45 NJPER 372, 376 (¶97 2019) (Southampton I). ¶

The Association’s grievances seek to arbitrate the following issues: ¶

1) The faculty-only mandatory PD day scheduled for Wednesday, August 27, 2025, prior to the start of the student school year; ¶

2) the total number of PD days for the 2025-2026 school year; and ¶

3) the scheduling of the remaining PD days during the 2025-2026 school year. ¶

We first address the negotiability of the faculty-only PD day scheduled for August 27, 2025. The student school year was scheduled to begin on September 2, the day after Labor Day. The Association seeks to move the faculty-only PD day into September. However, because of the way the calendar fell that year, scheduling the PD day in September would either conflict with the beginning of the student school year or eliminate the Board’s ability to hold a PD day before students returned. ¶

The scheduling of faculty-only work days is non-negotiable to the extent negotiations would interfere with a board’s prerogative to determine the start of the student school year. See Southampton Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2021-37, 47 NJPER 409, 412 (¶97 2021) (Southampton II) (scheduling of non-student faculty work days was non-negotiable to the extent it would change the Board’s prerogative to start the student school year immediately after Labor Day); see also Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed., 42 NJPER 71 (¶18 App. Div. 2015), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2014-47, 40 NJPER 337 (¶123 2014) (change in faculty start date to August to begin one day prior to start of student school year that was shifted to align with regional high school was non-negotiable); W. Morris Reg’ l High Sch. Bd. of Ed., 45 NJPER 89 (¶23 App. Div. 2018), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2017-29, 43 NJPER 225 (¶68 2016) (proposal to set faculty work year between September 1 and June 30 was non-negotiable because it would preclude Board from scheduling the student school year beyond those dates); and Essex Fells Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2018-2, 44 NJPER 71 (¶22 2017) (change in faculty start date to August to accommodate shift in student start date prior to Labor Day to align with regional district was not negotiable). Accordingly, the Association’s grievances are not legally arbitrable to the extent they challenge the Board’s decision to schedule a PD day prior to the start of the student school year. However, the specific date selected for that pre-school-year PD is legally arbitrable. Belvidere Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 78-62, 4 NJPER 165, 166 (¶4080 1978), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 57 (¶37 App. Div. 1979); Edison Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 78-53, 4 NJPER 151, 152 (¶4070 1978); see also Southampton I, aff’d, Southampton I (App. Div.) (board committed unfair practice by refusing to negotiate over the scheduling of two staff development days for times that would not interfere with the student calendar); and Southampton II (negotiations over the timing of two staff development days during the week before the start of the student school year did not significantly interfere with determination of education policy). ¶

We turn next to the negotiability of the total number of PD days for the 2025-2026 school year, as well as when the remaining PD days were scheduled during the student school year. The record does not contain a specific rationale for the Board’s asserted managerial prerogative for allegedly increasing the total number of PD days or for scheduling those PD days on the dates they were scheduled. In the absence of specific rationale supporting the Board’s asserted managerial prerogative, we find the total number of PD days scheduled, as well as the scheduling of the remaining PD days during the student school year, to be legally arbitrable. Belvidere Bd. of Ed., supra; Edison Tp. Bd. of Ed., supra; see also Southampton I, supra. ¶

This case is distinguishable from Franklin Lakes Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2018-44, 44 NJPER 407 (¶113 2018), relied on by the Board, in which the Commission restrained arbitration over the scheduling of a professional development day, but allowed arbitration over additional compensation for the alleged workload increase. There, it was undisputed that the number of faculty- only work days was unchanged where the board rescheduled an end- of-year “pack and clean” day to instead be an additional staff training day prior to the start of the school year. The record in Franklin Lakes demonstrated a dominant educational policy reason for the change in the scheduling and type of non-student faculty work day, supported by the superintendent’s certification that the change was made “to ensure that adequate time was available to provide necessary training to staff members for the successful opening of the 2017-2018 school year.” As discussed above, the record here does not provide an explanation of the Board’s asserted managerial prerogative regarding the total number of PD days for the 2025-2026 school year or for the scheduling of the PD days that took place during the student school year. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Associations’s August 27 PD grievance is granted to the extent the grievance challenges the Board’s decision to schedule a faculty-only PD day prior to the start of the student school year. The request is denied to the extent the grievance contests the specific date selected for the faculty-only PD prior to the start of the student school year. ¶

The Board’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Association’s grievance challenging the total number of PD days for the 2025-2026 school year, as well as the dates on which the remaining PD days were scheduled during the student school year, is denied. ¶

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/ The calendar also included four earlier “New Staff Orientation” days scheduled for August 20, 21, 25, and 26 that the Association’s grievances do not dispute. ¶

2/ The Board’s counsel did not specifically distinguish between the “Teacher Start Date Violation” grievance and the “Work Year Violation (11-Month Employees)” grievance, both of which alleged CNA violations for working prior to September. ¶