P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43, Gloucester Cty

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-020 CWA LOCAL 1085, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the request of the County of Gloucester for a restraint of binding arbitration of grievances filed by CWA Local 1085 contesting the County’s decisions not to hire the grievant, a part-time Public Safety Telecommunicator (PST), to certain full-time positions. The Commission finds this dispute concerns the grievant not being transferred or reassigned to a full-time PST position or selected for the full-time fire-room position that he applied for. The Commission finds those claims are not legally arbitrable because employers have a managerial prerogative to make hiring decisions to meet the governmental policy goal of matching the best qualified employees to particular jobs. The Commission further finds the record does not support CWA’s argument that the dispute concerns the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule. The Commission denies the County’s petition only to the extent the grievances seek an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the desired positions. ¶

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 COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-020 CWA LOCAL 1085, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys (Michael J. DiPiero, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Weissman & Mintz, LLC, attorneys (Ira W. Mintz, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On November 21, 2025, the County of Gloucester (County) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of two grievances filed by CWA Local 1085 (CWA). The grievances assert that the County violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA) by failing to hire the grievant as a full-time Public Safety Telecommunicator (PST) or a full-time Police Dispatcher. The County filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of its counsel, Michael J. DiPiero. CWA filed a brief.1/ These facts appear.2/ ¶

The County and CWA are parties to a CNA in effect from January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2028. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. CWA represents all full- time employees in the Blue and White Collar, Supervisory, and Row Office negotiations units, including craft employees, Mosquito Control employees, Emergency Medical Technicians, and investigators in the Medical Examiner’s Office.3/ Part-time employees in the above categories are also included. ¶

The CNA states that the employer “reserves sole determination to make promotional appointments,” and that employees seeking promotion “must possess the skill, knowledge, and potential ability to learn the job within a reasonable time, to be determined by the Employer.” (CNA, Art. 26.2.) The CNA also states that seniority will be considered before an appointment is made, “[w]hen qualifications are substantially equal.” (Id.) ¶

The grievant is employed in the County’s Emergency Response Department as a part-time PST. In a series of emails in late 2024 between the grievant and the County’s Director of Emergency Response (Director), the grievant notified the County that he was retiring from his full-time position with another public employer and inquired about the possibility of getting a full-time position with the County. If possible, the grievant requested that the full-time position be in a leadership role within the County’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM). ¶

In the course of this email exchange, the Director informed the grievant there was no full-time position currently available. He also advised that the County’s Deputy Director/OEM Coordinator had “been asking to bring on additional OEM staff and is strenuously arguing for some young, eager to learn and willing to work bodies (as opposed to retired police or Fire guys/girls” ). Moreover, he informed the grievant that he nevertheless “present[ed himself] extremely well and certainly h[as] the requisite experience” for a leadership/management position. On December 18, 2024, the County’s Training Coordinator notified the grievant that the Director was taking measures to have him placed on the full-time list. ¶

On January 16, 2025, the Director notified the grievant that despite his endorsement, he was told at a Director’s meeting that the grievant would not be moved into a full-time position. The next day he advised the grievant that there was no discussion or explanation about that decision. On January 27, the Director again notified the grievant that he had no further explanation for the decision. ¶

On February 19, 2025, CWA filed a grievance alleging: ¶

Grievant is a 22 year part-time PST and has been seeking a full-time position. Grievant has had multiple meetings with the department’s management, and despite his request to move to full time, the department has posted a CWA job announcement dated 2/11/25 for more full-time PST trainees. Grievant is an experienced PST with a good work record and no past discipline and should receive any full-time opening over an inexperienced trainee. ¶

As a remedy, CWA sought that the grievant be given the first available full-time Public Safety Telecommunicator position that is open in Emergency Response. ¶

On May 16, 2025, CWA filed a second grievance on behalf of the grievant alleging: ¶

GC PSTs received an email notifying them of a full-time opening in the EMS/Fire room, stating the opening was for “any police room dispatchers interested in voluntarily switching to the fire room on a full-time basis.” Notification also states the department would abide by the contract and everything would be done by seniority. Although grievant is not a police room dispatcher, he requested the position and would not require any of the offered training. Grievant was told his “desire” was previously sent to Woodbury, disregarding the grievant’s request for the current opening. ¶

The May 16 grievance requested as a remedy that the grievant “be given the full-time opening advertised to employees unless there is another more qualified PST with more seniority than the grievant.” ¶

According to facts alleged in its brief, the County denied both grievances, asserting as a basis for the denials that it “had chosen candidates it felt were more qualified for the full- time positions.” 4/ ¶

On July 15, 2025, CWA filed two separate Requests for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators (AR-2026-024; AR-2026-025), respectively seeking arbitration of the February 19 and May 16 grievances. The request form for AR-2026-025 contains the following statement identifying the February 19 grievance: ¶

Grievant is a 22-year part-time PST and was passed over for a full-time opening posted on 2/11/25 despite having over twenty [years] of experience over all employees who were eventually given the position. ¶

The request form for AR-2026-024 identifies the May 16 grievance as follows: ¶

Grievant is a 22-year part-time PST and received a 5/9/25 work email from the employer advertising for a full-time position that the grievant was already working in as a part-time employee. Despite the employer stating in the email that the contract would be followed in regard to seniority, grievant was denied an interview and the position despite having both seniority and experience over the employee given the position. ¶

This petition ensued. ¶

The Commission’s inquiry into 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 union's claimed violation of the agreement, as well as the employer’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). ¶

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]. ¶

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 County argues that arbitration should be restrained because hiring decisions are a managerial prerogative and not mandatorily negotiable. It asserts that the right to fill or not fill a vacancy, promote employees, and set promotional criteria are all non-negotiable. The County argues that even if a contract term provides preference to senior employees when all qualifications are equal, the County still retains the right to determine which candidates are equally qualified. It states that it assessed all candidates interested in the full-time positions and selected the best candidates to meet the needs of the department. ¶

CWA argues that because “the grievant seeks neither to be hired or to be promoted,” the County’s reliance on its managerial prerogatives over hiring and promotional decisions is irrelevant. CWA emphasizes that all the grievant seeks “is an increase in work hours to full-time.” It asserts that work schedules and hours of work directly and intimately affect employees. CWA notes that the County has not stated any facts in the record to support the need to deny the grievant his request of increased hours, so the matter is arbitrable. ¶

In reply, the County reiterates its prior arguments and states that CWA’s argument is irrelevant as hiring decisions, including the ability to not fill a vacancy, are within management’s rights and cannot be forced to negotiations. ¶

It is well-settled that public employers have a non- negotiable right to make promotions, and/or transfer and reassign employees to meet the governmental policy goal of matching the best qualified employees to particular jobs. Such decisions intimately affect an employer’s ability to manage its workforce and achieve operational goals. Local 195, 88 N.J. at 417 (1982); see also Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 156–157 (1978). Even in instances where a CNA gives preference to employees with seniority when all qualifications are equal, the public employer has the right to determine which, if any, of the candidates are equally qualified. Edison Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2015-74, 41 NJPER 495 (¶153 2015). ¶

Initially, we decline CWA’s argument that this dispute concerns the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule and not his desire to be hired into a full-time PST position or promoted into another full-time position.5/ The record facts show that the crux of this dispute is that the grievant was not transferred or reassigned to a full-time PST position or selected for the full-time fire room position that he applied for. Those claims are not legally arbitrable. As set forth above, employers have a managerial prerogative to make hiring decisions to meet the governmental policy goal of matching the best qualified employees to particular jobs. See, Local 195, supra; Ridgefield Park, supra. The County states that it assessed all candidates interested in the full-time positions and selected the best candidates to meet the needs of the department. ¶

CWA argues that even if this case is about the County’s right to match the best qualified employees to particular jobs, the County has failed to provide an explanation of the relative qualifications of the selected candidates. Indeed, the County has not provided an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the full-time positions. We have held legally arbitrable procedures relating to the promotion process including “the right to know why an employee’s application was rejected,” as long as such requests do not infringe upon the employer’s right to exercise its managerial functions. Ocean Cty. Utilities Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 2011-30, 36 NJPER 367, 369 (¶143 2010). See, also, Tp. of Nutley, P.E.R.C. No. 88-90, 14 NJPER 254, 255 (¶19095 1988) (employee requests for justification of management personnel actions are negotiable).6/ To the extent the CWA seeks an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the full-time positions, that issue is legally arbitrable. ¶

Accordingly, the County’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration is granted, except to the extent CWA seeks an explanation from the County as to why grievant was not selected for the full-time positions. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request of the County of Gloucester for a restraint of binding arbitration is granted, except to the extent the grievance seeks an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the full-time positions. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Higgins, Hines, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. Commissioner Davey recused herself. Commissioner Eaton was not present. ¶

ISSUED: May 28, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(f) requires that all pertinent facts be supported by certifications based upon personal knowledge. CWA did not file a certification, and the County’s certification from its counsel only recites procedural facts and identifies attached exhibits. ¶

2/ Although the CNA’s recognition clause refers to “bargaining units,” we will use the term “negotiations units,” consistent with the terminology of our Act as it applies to public employment relations. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.12. ¶

3/ The grievant’s title of “Public Safety Telecommunicator” is not listed in the recognition clause. However, the CNA elsewhere refers to employees in the “PST series.” There appears to be no dispute that the grievant is a unit member. ¶

4/ The record contains no documents memorializing the denials, or any specific information about either the full-time positions or those who were hired into them. ¶

5/ Work schedules are generally mandatorily negotiable if agreement on that topic would not significantly interfere with a governmental policy determination. See, e.g., Union Cty. College, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-38, 44 NJPER 379 (¶107 2018); Carteret Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-23, 46 NJPER 228 (¶53 2019), aff’d, In re Borough of Carteret (App. Div. 2021); Morris Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2004-75, 30 NJPER 204 (¶76 2004). As explained within this decision, this dispute centers around the County’s hiring decisions, not the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule. However, even if this dispute did concern the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule, compelling the County through grievance arbitration to hire, transfer or reassign grievant to a full-time position would be a significant interference with a governmental policy determination when the County has already determined that other candidates were better qualified. ¶

6/ Note, however, that since the Legislature’s adoption of the Civil Service Act in 1986, a Civil Service appointing authority such as the County cannot be compelled to advise eligible applicants of reasons they were not selected for “rule of three” promotions, i.e., those involving open competitive examinations wherein the appointing authority may select one of the three highest scoring candidates. Local 518, New Jersey State Motor Vehicle Employees Union, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 262 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 1993). The record does not indicate that the grievances in this case concern “rule of three” appointments. ¶