P.E.R.C. No. 2026-41, Elizabeth B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-032 NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Respondent, -and- VICTORIA WHITE, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms the Director of Unfair Practices' dismissal of unfair practice charges, alleging that the Board and the Association violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 5.4 a(1), (5) and 5.4b(1),(3), (7), respectively of the Act. Regarding the charges against the Board, the Commission finds that the Director properly dismissed the a(5) charge because individual employees do not have standing to pursue charges that the employer refused to negotiate in good faith. The Commission further finds that the Director properly dismissed the a(1) charge because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the Charging Party's allegations of improper payroll deductions from a back pay award obtained through a tenure arbitration. Regarding the charges against the Association, the Commission finds the Director properly dismissed these clams, which amount to a breach of duty of representation for the Association's alleged lack of assistance in filing grievances regarding the payroll deduction issues. The Commission concludes that given the discretion afforded to union in filing grievances, the Charging Party did not establish that the Association represented her in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. ¶

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 ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-032 NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Respondent, -and- VICTORIA WHITE, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Victoria White, pro se ¶

For the Respondent, Elizabeth Board of Education, La Corte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella, attorneys, (Brian J. Kane, Esq., of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, New Jersey Education Association, Selikoff & Cohen, PA, attorneys, (Keith Waldman and Daniel R. Dowdy, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On January 24, 2026, and later amended on February 3, Victoria White (White or Charging Party) appealed from the January 22 decision of the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) refusing to issue a complaint and dismissing her unfair practice charge (UPC or charge) filed against the Elizabeth Board of Education (Board) and the New Jersey Education Association (Association)(collectively Respondents). ¶

BACKGROUND ¶

A. White’s UPCs ¶

The original charge, filed on January 14, 2026, only reproduced sections of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq., with no further details. On January 15, the Director notified White of several deficiencies with the charge, and provided an extension until January 22 for amendment. These deficiencies included: that the charge provide a clear and concise statement of facts; establish that the claims are within the 6-month statute of limitations; and proof of service upon the Respondents. ¶

On January 16, White amended her charge which included the following sections: ¶

(1) an 8-item section of “Facts” ; ¶

(2) a section titled “Unfair Practices by the Elizabeth Board of Education” , alleging violation of 5.4a(1), (3), and (5); ¶

(3) a section titled “Unfair Practices by NJEA and EEA” , alleging a violation of 5.4b(1); and ¶

(4) a section titled “Relief Requested” , seeking that the Board “cease and desist from deducting unemployment compensation from my back-pay/arbitration award” and that the Association “cease and desist from failing to fairly represent me, to process my grievance properly, and to take appropriate action to enforce the correct back-pay calculation.” ¶

On January 21, White filed a second amendment to her charge that stated the following, in pertinent part:1/ ¶

The Elizabeth Board of Education has unlawfully deducted excessive amounts from my December 23, 2025 paycheck (and prior periods) for TPAF pension, pension loans, NJEA dues, and unauthorized “unemployment payments,” totaling $4,023.88 in deductions from gross wages, leaving only $893.36 net- nearly 100% withholding. Correct amounts are TPAF pension $376.42, TPAF loan $380.71, NJEA dues $75.00 (total $832.13); actual deductions far exceed these, violating multiple statutes. ¶

Violations of N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4 (Wage Payment Law) ¶

Exceeding authorized pension/loan amounts and adding unapproved “unemployment” deductions breaches subsection (a) (no unauthorized diversions) and (d) (must be reasonable/fair), as only law-mandated or written-authorized withholdings are permitted. ¶

TPAF Statute Violations (N.J.S.A. 18A:66-35 et seq.) ¶

Pension loan repayments cannot exceed 25% of base salary per period (Division of Pensions rule); doubling/tripling beyond $380.71 violates this cap and fixed contribution rates ($376.42). ¶

“Unemployment” has no TPAF basis. ¶

Violations of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a) (Employer Prohibited Practices) ¶

• (a)(1): Interfering with union rights by undermining NJEA dues and employee protections. ¶

• (a)(5): Discrimination in employment terms to discourage union membership, via targeted over-deductions.2/ ¶

Violations of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(b) (Employee/Union Prohibited Practices, Imputable to Employer) ¶

Employer actions interfering with negotiations violate: ¶

• (b)(1): Refusing to negotiate in good faith on wages/deductions. ¶

• (b)(3): Failing to comply with grievance procedures or CBA terms on payroll. ¶

• (b)(7): Otherwise restraining employees' PERC rights during disputes.[nj]3/ ¶

Relief Sought ¶

• Cease extra deductions exceeding lawful limits. ¶

• Reimburse all over-withheld amounts from this/prior paychecks. ¶

• Correct future payrolls to exact authorized figures. ¶

NJ laws/TPAF statutes attached. Demand swift correction under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.6 (treble damages recovery). ¶

[Any errors or typos are in the original.] ¶

B. The Director’s Decision ¶

By letter dated January 22, the Director dismissed both the amended and second amended charges in their entirety, stating in pertinent part: ¶

Initially, please note that there is no section 5.4b(7). If you were referring to section 5.4a(7) or 5.4b(5), your allegations are dismissed because the amended and second amended charges allege a violation of same without citing a NJ Public Employment Relations Commission rule or regulation that was violated. See City of Elizabeth, P.E.R.C. No. 82-74, 8 NJPER 121 (¶13052 1982); Palisades Park Bor., D.U.P. No. 78-1, 3 NJPER 238 (1977). Accordingly, any 5.4a(7) and 5.4b(5) allegations are hereby dismissed. ¶

Your section 5.4a(5) and 5.4b(3) allegations are dismissed because individual employees do not have standing to pursue such claims; only majority representatives and/or public employers do. Section 5.4a(5) pertains to a public employer refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative. Section 5.4b(3) pertains to a majority representative refusing to negotiate in good faith with a public employer. A public employer only has a duty to your majority representative under section 5.4a(5). A majority representative only has a duty to your public employer under section 5.4b(3). See New Jersey Turnpike Auth. P.E.R.C. No. 81-64, 6 NJPER 560 (¶11284 1980) aff'd NJPER Supp.2d 101 (¶85 App. Div. 1981); Union Cty. Ed. Services Comm’n and Westlake Ed. Ass’n, D.U.P. 2000-13, 26 NJPER 160 (¶31062 2000). ¶

Accordingly, your 5.4a(5) and 5.4b(3) allegations are hereby dismissed. ¶

Your section 5.4a(1), 5.4a(3), and 5.4b(1) allegations are dismissed for the reasons set forth in the letter dated January 15, 2026 and as set forth below. ¶

Initially, the amended and second amended charges do not provide a clear and concise statement of the facts forming the basis of your legal and factual claims against the Respondent(s). See N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3(a)(3). A Respondent is entitled to know the “particulars” of which it is charged. Town of Westfield, P.E.R.C. No. 90-32, 15 NJPER 618 (¶20257 1989). Conclusory statements about a Respondent's conduct does not satisfy our pleading requirements. A charge should plead with specificity the “who, what, when, where and how” information about the commission of an unfair practice in order to afford Respondents adequate notice of the legal and factual claims against them. State of New Jersey (Judiciary), D.U.P. No. 2022-8, 48 NJPER 344 (¶77 2022); Edison Tp., D.U.P. No. 2012-9, 38 NJPER 269 (¶92 2012), aff’d P.E.R.C. No. 2013-84, 40 NJPER 35 (¶14 2013); Warren Cty. College, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-25, 44 NJPER 287 (¶80 2017). ¶

With respect to the Statute of Limitations, based upon what can be gleaned from your charge “as is” , it is unclear who did what AND when they did same. Accordingly, you have failed to demonstrate that an alleged/viable unfair practice may have been committed within six months of when your original charge was filed on January 14, 2026, and therefore your allegations fall outside the Commission's jurisdiction. Moreover, the amended and second unfair practice charges fail to provide a sufficient basis to toll the six-month statute of limitations particularly in the absence of any explanation regarding how/if you were prevented from filing a timely charge. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c). The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that “every person is presumed to know the law.” State v. Moran, 202 N.J.311, 315, 319-320 (2010) (citing ¶

Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. 404, 411 (1833) (noting “a common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally” )). ¶

With respect to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, it appears that the Commission lacks same over your allegations/claims. We have no authority to address whether pension loan amounts or deductions were properly processed by a public employer, or whether unemployment benefits should be deducted from a back pay award. On the latter issue, you have acknowledged that unemployment benefits concerning/related to back pay for the 120-day suspension are governed by Title 18A provisions governing tenure charge proceedings. As such, these allegations arise under the education laws and you may consider filing a petition with the Commissioner of Education. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 (issues “arising under the education laws” must be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Education). Moreover, any challenge to payroll deductions should be presented to the Department of Labor's Division of Wage and Hour Compliance. ¶

Finally, your 5.4b(1) allegations essentially appear to be a duty of fair representation (DFR) claim against NJEA (and/or their affiliate). A majority representative owes a DFR to all unit employees, regardless of union membership. A breach of the DFR occurs only when a majority representative's conduct towards a unit employee is “arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.” Middlesex Cty. and Middlesex Council #7 (Mackaronis), P.E.R.C. No. 81-62, 6 NJPER 555, 557 (¶11282 1981), aff’d App. Div. Docket No. A-1455-80. Majority representatives have a broad range of discretion the Commission will generally defer to in how they choose to handle the processing and/or settlement of grievances. State of New Jersey (JJC) and CWA Local 1040 ¶

(Thorpe), D.U.P. No. 2012-8, 38 NJPER 248 (¶83 2011), aff'd P.E.R.C. No. 2013-29, 39 NJPER 205 (¶66 2012); State of New Jersey (Kean University) and Council of NJ College Locals (Roman), D.U.P. No. 2015-10, 41 NJPER 497 (¶154 2015), aff'd P.E.R.C. No. 2015-76, 42 NJPER 33 (¶8 2015). Mere negligence, incompetence or mistakes by the majority representative in the handling of grievances at the hearing stage or during settlement discussions is not a breach of the DFR. Id. Here, you have not alleged any specific facts supporting a DFR violation. Rather, it appears that NJEA (and/or their affiliate) represented you in a tenure arbitration proceeding and obtained a favorable outcome. The fact that NJEA (and/or its affiliate) did not subsequently challenge the payroll deductions from your back pay award is not, by itself, a DFR violation. In fact, for the reasons set forth above regarding subject matter jurisdiction, NJEA (and/or its affiliate) may have had a rational basis not to pursue those claims. ¶

Accordingly, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(a), your charge is dismissed in its entirety and this case is closed. Any appeal of this action must be filed within 10 days of the above date in accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b). ¶

[Emphasis in original.] ¶

C. White’s Appeal of the Director’s Decision ¶

The instant appeal followed. In her January 24 appeal, consisting of a three page email with no attachments, White argues that the Director’s dismissal of her charge was in error. She asserts that individual employees do have standing to pursue a(1), a(3), and b(1) charges. She further asserts that her charge met the pleading standard set forth in N.J.A.C. 19:14- 1.3(a)3. She claims her charge details facts about the Board’s improper back pay issuance that included unemployment deductions, and that the Association’s counsel ignored repeated communications and emails in 2025. She asserts that her charge was filed within the 6-month statute of limitations, referencing an improper backpay deduction on January 17, 2025, as well as ongoing violations for “repeated ignored grievances.” She argues that the Commission does have jurisdiction because the Respondent’s actions interfered with her rights under the Act rather than just violating Title 18A. Regarding her DFR claim, she reiterates her claim regarding the Association’s arbitrary and “perfunctory refusal to process grievances” when she has established a “clear Ciripompa violation” 4/. ¶

On January 27, the Commission’s Case Administrator notified White that her January 24 appeal was deficient pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b) because it was not “a self-contained document enabling the Commission to rule on the basis of its contents.” The deficiency letter instructed that White must submit the record of documents that make up her case and provide proof of service of her appeal to all other parties to the case. White was given a deadline of February 3. On that date, White provided a 7-page email, reiterating her previous arguments from her January 24 appeal, that included embedded download links, photos, and 292 pages of unlabeled attachments.5/ 6/ ¶

D. The Parties’ Opposition to White’s Appeal. ¶

On February 10, the Association filed its opposition to White’s February 3 appeal. The Association argues that the Director’s decision should be affirmed on procedural and substantive grounds. The Association contends that White’s appeal is procedurally deficient because her “email filled with external links” was not properly served nor did it meet the requirements of a “self-contained document” set forth in N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b). Further, the Association asserts that the “facts” and attachments White included in her February 3 email appeal were not previously presented prior to her appeal of the Director’s decision, and therefore, must not be considered. The Association asserts the Director’s decision properly found that White’s January 16 UPC was beyond the 6-month statute of limitations. The Association further argues that the Director’s decision should be affirmed because she fails to plead any specific facts that establish that the Association represented her in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Further, the Association argues that White’s requested relief is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Association asserts that White’s claims asserting violations of Title 18A are properly the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education, her claims for improper unemployment or payroll deductions are properly the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and her claims for improper pension deductions are properly the jurisdiction of the Division of Pensions. ¶

On February 12, the Board filed its opposition to White’s appeal of the Director’s decision. The Board asserts that White has filed numerous complaints against the Board, regarding the same allegations in the UPC, at the New Jersey Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division and the New Jersey Department of Education, and she has withdrawn each of the complaints. The Board further argues the Director’s dismissal of the UPCs should be affirmed because the relief sought by the charges is outside the authority of the Commission. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

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. We affirm the Director’s decision to dismiss White’s UPC because she did not plead sufficient facts to support the alleged violations of the Act.7/ ¶

I. Charges Against the Board ¶

White’s N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(5) charge against the Board alleges “discrimination in employment terms to discourage union membership, via targeted over-deductions.” The Director found that individual employees do not have standing to pursue such a charge because the employer’s duty to negotiate in good faith only runs to the majority representative. New Jersey Tpk. Auth. v. Beall (App. Div. 1981), aff’ g, P.E.R.C. No. 81-64, 6 NJPER 560 (¶11284 1980); Sussex Cty. Sheriff’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-49, 47 NJPER 527 (¶123 2021); and Essex Cty. (Miller), P.E.R.C. No. 2019-16, 45 NJPER 195 (¶50 2018). We agree with the Director. ¶

Next, we turn to White’s N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) charge against the Board, asserting its “interfer[ence] with union rights by undermining NJEA dues and employee protections.” 8/ White’s dispute against the Board stems from alleged improper payroll deductions from a back pay award she obtained in a tenure arbitration. In her February 3, 2026 appeal, she states, “I was suspended on tenure charges; later, I obtained an arbitration/back-pay award governed by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14.” (Emphasis added). In the attachments to her appeals, she includes the tenure arbitrator’s award, which expressly states, “I will retain jurisdiction of this matter to resolve any dispute that arises as to the implementation of this award.” (Emphasis added). ¶

We agree with the Director that the record contains no grounds for this agency to obtain jurisdiction over White’s allegations concerning allegedly improper payroll deductions from her back pay award. See State of New Jersey (Department of Corrections and Youth Justice Commission, P.E.R.C. No. 2026-11, 52 NJPER 129 (¶33 2025)(dismissing an a(1) and (5) charge by an individual employee against a public employer regarding disputed pension calculations because this agency lacked jurisdiction over such claims). Such jurisdiction may rest with the tenure arbitrator, the Commissioner of Education9/, the Department of Labor and/or the Division of Pensions and Benefits.10/ Thus, the Director correctly dismissed the N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) charge against the Board. ¶

III. Charge Against the Association ¶

We next address White’s appeal of the Director’s dismissal of her N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) charge against the Association, alleging that it failed to file proposed grievances and ignored her requests for assistance with the allegedly improper payroll deductions. ¶

In White’s January 16, 2026 first amended charge she states: ¶

Beginning in 2025 and continuing thereafter, I repeatedly sought assistance from my unions (NJEA and EEA) regarding the improper deduction and the Board’s refusal to correct it. I filed grievances and sent multiple emails, letters, and demands for action to the NJEA/EEA and its assigned counsel . . . . to no avail. ¶

In White’s January 21 second amended charge she states that the Association “[failed] to comply with grievance procedures or CBA terms on payroll.” ¶

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.” A breach of the duty of fair representation violates subsection 5.4b(1) of the Act and 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). ¶

A review of White’s emails about the alleged improper payroll deductions demonstrates that they were largely directed to the Board and its counsel, with multiple people copied including Association representatives. The emails suggest that White and the Board were involved in an appeal over payroll deductions before the Department of Labor, and that she asked the Association to provide her with different representation and pursue grievances on her behalf. ¶

The duty of fair representation does not require a union to arbitrate every grievance. Essex Cty. (Miller), P.E.R.C. No. 2019-16, 45 NJPER 195 (¶50 2018); Passaic Cty. Support Staff Ass’n, P.E.R.C. No. 2015-23, 41 NJPER 169 (¶60 2014). Unions are provided wide latitude in determining whether a grievance is meritorious and warrants action.11/ White’s emails show that the Association was on notice of both the Department of Labor appeal and White’s dissatisfaction with her union representation. However, given the discretion afforded unions in deciding whether a grievance is meritorious, the emails do not establish that the Association represented her in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. See Lullo v. IAFF, supra. Thus, we affirm the Director’s decision dismissing White’s N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) charge. ¶

For all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Director’s January 22, 2026 decision dismissing White’s UPCs in their entirety. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Charging Party’s appeal of the Director’s January 22, 2026 decision 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/ White’s second amended charge included only one exhibit, a picture of a December 23, 2025 pay stub. ¶

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. . . .(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.” ¶

3/ These provisions 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;” “(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 the unit.” We note that there is no section b(7) for violations of the Act by employee organizations. ¶

4/ In her January 16 first amended charge, in the “Facts” section, White cites Ciripompa v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Bound Brook, 466 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2021) for the proposition that “unemployment compensation is not ‘pay or salary from any substituted employment’ within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14, and therefore unemployment benefits may not be deducted from a teacher's back-pay award.” We note that this case was an appeal of a Commissioner of Education’s decision interpreting Title 18A “Education” law. ¶

5/ Under a section titled “Complete Record of Documents” , White lists the 292 pages of attachments as follows: Original Charge, “Ciripompa” Appellate Decision, PERC defect letter dated January 27, 2026, Director’s Dismissal Order dated January 22, 2026, My prior emails/appeal dated January 23- 24, 2026, Grievance emails to the Association from 2025, Back-pay paystubs ( “7 checks, Jan. 17, 2025"). White states, “No other documents exist in the record.” ¶

6/ White continued to send repetitive emails concerning her appeal after February 3, 2026 that are not included as part of the record. ¶

7/ As a threshold issue, we agree with the Director that White’s filings do not demonstrate that they were timely filed. ¶

8/ We note that the January 21 second amended charge excludes the a(3) charge which was raised in the January 16 amended charge. ¶

9/ Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, the Commissioner of Education “shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and disputes arising under the school laws...” ¶

10/ The Board asserts that White had complaints pending in other venues but withdrew those complaints. ¶

11/ The Commission has frequently dismissed claims alleging that a union’s decision not to process or arbitrate a grievance violated the duty of fair representation. See, e.g., Essex Cty. Sheriff (Moriarty), P.E.R.C. No. 92-81, 18 NJPER 96 (¶23043 1992); AFSCME, Co. 52, Loc. 888 (Brennan), P.E.R.C. No. 89-71, 15 NJPER 71 (¶20027 1988); Camden Cty. College (Porreca), P.E.R.C. No. 88-28, 13 NJPER 755 (¶18285 1987); TWU No. 225 (Metros), P.E.R.C. No. 85-99, 11 NJPER 231 (¶16089 1985); and Fair Lawn Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-138, 10 NJPER 351 (¶15163 1984). ¶