P.E.R.C. No. 2026-45, 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-2026-019 SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants the Board's request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Association's grievance, alleging that the Board violated the parties' CNA by assigning non-negotiated duties to teachers outside of scheduled lunch periods. To the extent the Association contests the assignment of these duties, the Commission finds that the grievance is not legally arbitrable because the assignment of these duties is related to student safety and supervision. The Commission further finds that Association has not established that the Board’s assigned supervisory duties have adversely impacted the teachers’ compensation, workload, or preparation time, and thus, this record does not establish severable impact issues that could be 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-2026-019 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 a grievance filed by the South Orange-Maplewood Education Association (Association). The grievance asserts that the Board violated Article XXI(7)(g) of the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA) by assigning non-negotiated duties (corridor duty, office support duty, and content lab area duty) to teachers outside of scheduled lunch periods. ¶

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 (Association Chairperson). These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents certified teaching employees and non-certified supportive employees. The Board and Association were parties to a CNA with a term from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024, which continues in effect. The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. ¶

Article XXI(7)(g) of the parties’ CNA, entitled “Employee Hours and Employee Work Load,” provides in pertinent part: ¶

All middle school teachers shall be assigned to one daily - related duty period, which may include cafeteria and/or corridor. The duty assignment shall be rotated among all middle school teachers so that a teacher will not be required to perform more than one duty per school week. Rotation is intended to be no more than once every five school days distributed on an equitable basis. ¶

The Superintendent certifies that the Association initiated a “Level I” oral grievance concerning a teacher’s assignment to non-instructional duties of corridor duty, office supervision duty, and content area lab duty. That grievance was denied. ¶

On September 7, 2025, the Association elevated the grievance to Level II. On September 16, the Level II grievance was denied, as follows: ¶

Our assigned duties support safe supervision of students and allow us to carry out Board Policy 3280 excerpted below. ¶

1. Each teaching staff member shall maintain a standard of care for member’s assigned duties and responsibilities. ¶

2. A teaching staff member shall not voluntarily assume responsibility for duties he or she cannot reasonably perform. Such assumed responsibilities carry the same potential for liability as do assigned responsibilities. ¶

All assigned staff duties for the 2025-2026 school year support the safety of students. ¶

[Exhibit D, Board. Cert. Emphasis added.] ¶

The grievance was then elevated to Level III. On October 1, 2025, the Superintendent denied the grievance, citing Commission precedent and stating in pertinent part: ¶

Consistent with these precedents, the District’s assignment of corridor duty, office supervision duty, and content area lab duty is a substitution of one student- supervision location for another within the middle school. These duties are student supervisory in nature and directly tied to the District’s responsibility to ensure student safety, security, and appropriate conduct. ¶

Therefore, as the grievance seeks to prevent District administration from exercising its managerial prerogative to assign duties necessary for student supervision and safety, the grievance is respectfully denied. ¶

[Exhibit E, Board Cert. Emphasis added.] ¶

On October 3, 2025, the Association filed a “Level IV” grievance,1/ stating in pertinent part: ¶

[The Board] has directed teachers to perform duties that are not in the [CNA]. These duties include corridor duty, office support duty, and content area lab duty and they are scheduled to occur outside of the scheduled lunch periods. They do not comply with the defined lunch-related duties in the contract. ¶

* * * ¶

Remedies Sought: ¶

1. [The Board] cease and desist immediately the practice of assigning non-negotiated duties. ¶

2. [The Board] provide compensation at the class coverage rate for the members who have performed these duties.... ¶

[Exhibit F, Board Cert.] ¶

On October 30, 2025, the Board held a public board meeting in which it, by resolution, denied the Level IV grievance in part and affirmed it in part, stating in pertinent part: ¶

WHEREAS, it has been determined that the assigned duties constitute reasonable and necessary supervisory responsibilities inherent to the role of teaching staff members and do not violate the specific provisions cited, as they are not deemed “lunch-related duties” that infringe upon the contractually defined duty-free lunch period; ¶

* * * ¶

Maplewood Middle School will cease the assignment of the office support duty. The other duty assignments are student supervisory duties that are not subject to negotiations and may be assigned by the administration. ¶

The Association Chairperson’s 8-paragraph certification contains one paragraph addressing the grievance at issue.2/ That paragraph states only that the Association’s grievance is “challenging the unilateral imposition of non-instructional duties on teaching staff members, including but not limited to office supervision duty.” 3/ ¶

On November 12, 2025, the Association filed a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators, which identifies the grievance to be arbitrated as, “Principal directed teachers to perform duties outside the time defined in the collective bargaining agreement.” This petition ensued. ¶

Our jurisdiction is narrow. The Commission is addressing the abstract issue of whether the subject matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. We do not consider the merits of the grievance or any contractual defenses that the employer may have. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978). ¶

The Supreme Court of New Jersey articulated the standards for determining whether a subject is mandatorily negotiable in Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393, 404-405 (1982): ¶

[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. ¶

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 Board argues that the Association’s grievance is not arbitrable because it significantly interferes with its managerial prerogative to assign teaching staff duties related to student safety and supervision. The Board asserts these duties - corridor and content-area lab duty - are not clerical, custodial, or tangential, but are connected to the Board’s obligation to protect students and safely operate the school. The Board argues that “corridor duty” ensures safe student movement between classes and “lab duty” requires oversight of students in environments involving specialized equipment with heightened safety considerations. The Board further argues that the assigned safety duties do not substitute a preparation period for supervisory duty, but rather, are simply substituting one form of student supervision (e.g., lunch duty) for another within the school day. ¶

The Association argues that the grievance is arbitrable because it is challenging the manner in which these non- instructional duties are distributed amongst the teachers and the resulting impacts on the teachers’ compensation, workload, and preparatory time. The Association asserts these issues are severable from the non-negotiable assignment of the student supervision for safety purposes. The Association contends that the severable and negotiable impacts of the supervision duties are issues of fact for an arbitrator to determine. The Association asserts that the method of distributing safety supervision assignments and compensation for performing them are mandatorily negotiable and arbitrable, particularly if such assignments increase workload or reduce preparatory time. ¶

The assignment of non-teaching duties related to student safety, control, or supervision are not mandatorily negotiable. Byram Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 76-27 (1976), aff’d 152 N.J. Super. 12 (App. Div. 1977). Moreover, employers are not required to negotiate over “minor tasks incidental to [a public employee’s] primary duties.” Bayonne Bd. of Ed. P.E.R.C. No. 87-109, 13 NJPER 268 (¶18110 1987); see also New Jersey Highway Auth. v. IFPTE Local 193 (Toll Supervisors of Am.), AFL-CIO (App. Div. 2003). However, the method of distributing these assignments, compensation for performing them, as well as reductions in preparation time and increases in workload are mandatorily negotiable and arbitrable issues. Long Branch Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 93-8, 18 NJPER 403 (¶23182 1992). ¶

The documented responses of the Board throughout the grievance process consistently reflect that the assignment of non-teaching duties in the instant dispute is related to safety and student supervision. Thus, based on the above cited precedent, to the extent the Association contests the assignment of these duties, the grievance is not legally arbitrable. ¶

The Association’s Level IV grievance also seeks compensation for performing these non-teaching duties. However, the Board’s response to the Level III grievance, and the Superintendent’s certification, provide that these supervisory duties do not increase the teacher’s student supervision time and are “a substitution of one student-supervision location [e.g. lunch duty] for another within the middle school.” In contrast, the Association’s certification contains no support that the teachers’ workload or compensation has been impacted by these supervisory assignments.4/ Compare Ocean Cty. Vocational Technical Sch. P.E.R.C. No. 2019-29, 45 NJPER 301 (¶78 2019)(denying a restraint of arbitration of a grievance challenging a secretary’s assignment of breakfast duties without additional compensation, where she certified that her compensation and workload were impacted.); see also Tp. of Lyndhurst, P.E.R.C. No. 2017-41, 43 NJPER 301 (¶85 2017)(restraining arbitration of a grievance challenging a Township ordinance restricting off-duty police work because the Association did not produce any evidence of claimed severable impact issues.); Clark Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2016-55, 42 NJPER 372 (¶105 2016), aff’d, No. A-2544-15T3 (App. Div. Oct. 28, 2016)(restraining arbitration regarding alleged severable impact issues because the union did not produce any evidence demonstrating that the grievant’s workload increased as a result of the Township’s unilateral change to her work hours/schedule.) ¶

We acknowledge Commission precedent cited by the Association supporting that a grievance may develop as it proceeds through the grievance process.5/ However, that precedent is not applicable to the instant matter where the Association has not certified to severable impacts from the disputed assignments. In the absence of certified facts from the Association that the Board’s assigned supervisory duties have adversely impacted the teachers’ compensation, workload, or preparation time, this record is insufficient to establish severable impact issues. ¶

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the Board’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Association’s grievance. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration is granted. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: June 25, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ This is the first written statement in the instant record articulating the Association’s grievance. ¶

2/ The remainder of the certification pertains to other Association grievances. ¶

3/ As noted above, the Board’s October 30 resolution discontinued the assignment of “office support duty,” thereby granting that aspect of the Association’s grievance, but stated that the remaining assignments are student supervisory duties. ¶

4/ We also note that the Association provided no support for a severable compensation claim for the office duty that was discontinued by the Board. ¶

5/ The Commission determines scope of negotiations petitions based on the totality of the certified facts and arguments raised by the parties and has often acknowledged that a dispute becomes more sharply focused as the grievance proceeds and professional assistance is received at higher levels of the grievance process. See North Hunterdon Reg. H.S. Dist. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 86-55, 11 NJPER 707, n.3 (¶16245 1985). ¶