P.E.R.C. No. 2026-42, PBA Loc 77

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PBA MAINLAND LOCAL 77, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-033 CHRISTOPHER LEARY, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants Leary’s appeal of the Director of Unfair Practices’ refusal to issue a complaint on his unfair practice charge (UPC) against the PBA. Leary’s UPC alleges that the PBA violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act when it suspended him from PBA membership for his previous filing of a UPC. The Commission finds that Leary’s allegation that the PBA disciplined him for exercising his protected right under the Act to file a UPC against his union may, if true, constitute an unfair practice and warrant the issuance of a Complaint. ¶

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 PBA MAINLAND LOCAL 77, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-033 CHRISTOPHER LEARY, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, The Fairness Center (Anthony R. Holtzman, of counsel) ¶

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

DECISION ¶

On January 23, 2026, the Charging Party (Leary) filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against his union, PBA Mainland Local 77 (PBA). The UPC alleges that the PBA violated subsection 5.4b(1)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq, by suspending Leary from the PBA in retaliation for his previous filing of a UPC against the PBA and Egg Harbor Township (Township).2/ Leary’s previous UPC was dismissed by the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) on March 25, 2025. See D.U.P. No. 2025-10, 51 NJPER 312 (¶71 2025). The current UPC seeks for the PBA to rescind his suspension, acknowledge he is a member in good standing, and cease from retaliating against him or any other PBA unit members for exercising their rights under the Act. ¶

On January 28, 2026, the Director dismissed Leary’s UPC, finding that based on the dismissal of the prior UPC in D.U.P. 2025-10, principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the same cause of action or of ultimate facts that were fairly litigated between the parties. The Director also found that Leary’s current UPC is either moot or unripe because his suspension from the PBA is currently being held in abeyance while an internal appeal to the State PBA is pending. Additionally, the Director found the Commission is precluded from reviewing the same issue as in the pending State PBA appeal. Finally, the Director found that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine issues of union membership unless the suspension was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. ¶

On February 5, 2026, Leary appealed the Director’s dismissal of his UPC to the Commission. On May 22, the PBA filed opposition to Leary’s appeal of the dismissal. ¶

Summary of Facts ¶

We summarize the pertinent facts as follows. Leary is a police officer employed by the Township and has been a dues- paying member of his majority representative, PBA Local 77, and the State PBA since the start of his employment in 2003. On July 28, 2023, after the Township denied his grievance related to the promotional testing process and the PBA refused to advance it to grievance arbitration, Leary filed his previous UPC against both the PBA and the Township. On July 30, 2023, Leary also filed a federal lawsuit against the Township and PBA Local 77 and its President and Business Agent based on the same factual allegations as in the previous UPC. ¶

On March 25, 2025, the Director issued D.U.P. No. 2025-10 dismissing Leary’s previous UPC. Leary did not appeal that dismissal to the Commission. On April 17, Leary withdrew his federal lawsuit as against PBA Local 77 and its officers. On July 17, PBA Local 77 and its officers filed a motion for attorney’s fees with the federal district court. On September 4, the district court denied the motion for attorneys fees. The court also dismissed Leary’s federal claim against the Township and dismissed his state law claims against the Township for lack of jurisdiction. On September 29, Leary re-filed his state law claims against the Township in New Jersey Superior Court, where it is still pending. ¶

On July 24, 2025, the PBA issued a formal notice of disciplinary review to Leary. The notice stated, in pertinent part (emphasis supplied in original): ¶

It has come to our attention that on July 28, 2023, you filed a ULP claim with PERC against Mainland PBA, Local #77 and PBA President Jeff Lancaster. Also, on July 30, 2023, you filed suit in Federal Court against Mainland PBA, Local 77 and PBA President Jeff Lancaster for the same accusations. This behavior resulted in harm, not only to a fellow union member but your own union as a whole. Following a preliminary review, this action is considered a violation of the Union’s Bylaws, specifically Article XXIX, Section E: “Oath for New Members.” ¶

The letter stated that the matter was being referred to the PBA’s Judiciary Review Board for further investigation and that disciplinary outcomes may include “suspension of union privileges or expulsion.” In an August 4, 2025 e-mail, the PBA’s State Delegate notified Leary of the August 20 Judiciary hearing and reiterated the alleged misconduct as follows: ¶

As stated in the letter you are being charged with a violation of Article XXIX. section E: “Oath of New Members” by filing a law suit against the Local Association and its president with PERC and with Federal Court. ¶

On November 20, 2025, the PBA President notified Leary that “the disciplinary hearing has concluded that your conduct warrants a suspension from the [PBA] for a period of six (6) months.” The letter set forth multiple membership benefits that would be lost, including death benefit coverage, legal protection plan, eligibility to attend union meetings, voting rights on union matters, and possession or use of any materials identifying you as a PBA member. It also stated that at the conclusion of his six-month suspension, Leary “may petition the membership body for reinstatement.” ¶

On November 21, 2025, Leary sent a letter to the State PBA appealing his suspension and requesting a stay. On December 8, the State PBA Judiciary Committee granted Leary’s request for a stay of his suspension during the pendency of his appeal. On January 5, 2026, the State PBA Judiciary Committee decided to hold the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of Leary’s state lawsuit against the Township. ¶

Arguments ¶

Leary’s appeal asserts that the Commission should remand his UPC to the Director for issuance of a Complaint because the PBA’s suspension of his union membership in retaliation for filing his previous UPC interfered with his rights under the Act in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1). Leary argues that res judicata and collateral estoppel are inapplicable because he does not seek to relitigate the same cause of action or factual allegations that were involved in his previously dismissed UPC. Leary asserts that the claim in this case is based on the PBA’s retaliatory suspension that occurred after his previous UPC was dismissed and after he had voluntarily withdrawn his related federal lawsuit against the PBA. Leary asserts the Director also erred in finding that his appeal to the State PBA and unrelated state lawsuit against the Township preclude the Commission from considering his UPC. Leary argues his UPC is not moot because his suspension has not been rescinded, the pending suspension has already interfered with his protected rights, and the State PBA’s eventual decision would not resolve his UPC. ¶

The PBA admits there is no res judicata issue barring Leary’s UPC because it is not a relitigation of his previous UPC, but asserts that there would be collateral estoppel of any allegations “that predate the July 24, 2025 letter commencing the disciplinary review.” The PBA argues that Leary’s UPC is moot or unripe while his appeal of his disciplinary suspension is pending before the State PBA because his suspension is currently being stayed pending the resolution of that process. The PBA argues that the UPC could be deferred until the State PBA makes its decision on Leary’s appeal, but acknowledges that it is holding that decision in abeyance until resolution of Leary’s state claim against the Township. ¶

Standard of Review ¶

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. Where no complaint is issued, the charging party may appeal to the Commission, which may sustain the refusal to issue a complaint or may direct that further action be taken. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b). ¶

Analysis ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) prohibits a union from “interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act.” A union 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). ¶

Unions may create rules binding on their members to accomplish organizational objectives, often in the form of constitutions and by-laws. Calabrese v. PBA Local 76, 157 N.J. Super. 139 (Law Div. 1978); Danese v. Ginesi, 280 N.J. Super. 17, 25 (App. Div. 1995). “The Commission will not intercede in intra-union disputes unless they are connected to allegations that an unfair practice has been committed.” PBA Local 334 (Mendoza), P.E.R.C. No. 2025-3, 51 NJPER 105 (¶25 2024), citing NJ State PBA & PBA Local 199 (Rinaldo), P.E.R.C. No. 2011-83, 38 NJPER 56 (¶8 2011); City of Jersey City, P.E.R.C. No. 83-32, 8 NJPER 563, 565-566 (¶13260 1982). ¶

The Commission may find a N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) violation where a union excludes or suspends a negotiations unit employee if its actions were arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or invidious. PBA Local 334 (Mendoza), supra, citing In re Probation Ass’n (Tortoreto), 442 N.J. Super. 185, 194-196 (App. Div. 2015) (employee who alleged union financial mismanagement could challenge union suspension as arbitrary). The Commission has found such arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or invidious actions could include a union suspending a member after that member files an unfair practice charge against it. PBA Local 152 (Smith), P.E.R.C. No. 99-18, 24 NJPER 450 (¶29208 1998) (union’s reference to UPC as a reason for internal union charges seeking to suspend employee’s union membership violated the Act because it “tended to interfere with his protected rights and lacked a legitimate and substantial organizational justification” ); Eastampton Tp. Ed. Ass’n (MacCarthy), P.E.R.C. No. 2025-21, 51 NJPER 186 (¶47 2024) (union violated the Act when it precluded an employee from running for union office because he had filed a UPC); and PBA Local 334 (Mendoza), supra (where union cited employee’s UPC as a basis for union charges and suspension, the Commission denied union’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s 5.4b(1) claim). ¶

Here, the PBA’s disciplinary notice to Leary specifically referenced his “ULP claim with PERC” as a basis for his alleged violation of the PBA’s bylaws that resulted in the issuance of a six-month suspension of his PBA membership and benefits. Leary’s allegation that the PBA suspended him because he filed a UPC against it may, if true, violate 5.4b(1) because it has a tendency to interfere with his protected rights under the Act. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a). See PBA Local 152 (Smith), supra; Eastampton (MacCarthy), supra; PBA Local 334 (Mendoza), supra; and Probation Ass’n (Tortoreto), supra. Based on the foregoing, we remand to the Director for the issuance of a complaint on Leary’s 5.4b(1) allegation. ¶

We also find res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Leary’s UPC because the instant UPC concerns different claims from the previous UPC. Additionally, we find that neither Leary’s internal appeal to the State PBA nor his state lawsuit against the Township give rise to issues of concurrent jurisdiction that would conflict with the Commission’s jurisdiction over his UPC against the PBA. Finally, we find that Leary’s UPC is not moot because there remains an open issue with practical significance (Leary’s pending suspension from the PBA), there may be a continuing chilling effect from the PBA’s alleged misconduct, and a cease and desist order may be necessary to prevent future adverse action against Leary or other PBA members who exercise their right under the Act to file a UPC against their union. See Galloway Township Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 25 (1978); PBA Local 334 (Mendoza), supra; Salem Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., P.E.R.C. No. 2024-7, 50 NJPER 187 (¶41 2023); and Hudson Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-48, 38 NJPER 331 (¶111 2012). ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The unfair practice charge is remanded to the Director of Unfair Practices for issuance of a Complaint. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: May 28, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ This provision prohibits 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.” ¶

2/ In Docket No. CI-2024-002, Leary alleged that the PBA violated the Act by agreeing to certain terms in its collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with the Township regarding access to promotional testing materials and by refusing to advance his grievance over promotional testing materials to arbitration. ¶