P.E.R.C. No. 2026-46, Mt Laurel B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of MOUNT LAUREL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-026 MOUNT LAUREL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the Board’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Association’s grievance challenging the Board’s denial of sick leave and loss of pay for employees who did not submit doctor’s notes when they sought to use sick leave for absences on the day after the Super Bowl and/or on the day of the Super Bowl Parade. The Commission finds that sick leave verification policies requiring the submission of a doctor’s note are non-negotiable. However, the Commission holds that the application of such policies, including sick leave denial and the imposition of penalties such as loss of pay, are 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 MOUNT LAUREL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-026 MOUNT LAUREL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Capehart Scatchard, P.A., attorneys (Sanmathi Dev, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Selikoff & Cohen, P.A., attorneys (Steven R. Cohen, of counsel; Hop T. Wechsler, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On March 31, 2026, the Mount Laurel Board of Education (Board) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Mount Laurel Education Association (Association). The grievance challenges the Board’s denial of sick leave and deduction of a day’s pay for three staff members who did not provide a doctor’s note when they sought to use sick leave for their absences on February 10, 2025 and/or February 14, 2025. ¶

The Board filed a brief with exhibits and the certification of its counsel attesting to the truth and accuracy of the exhibits, as well as a reply brief. The Association filed a brief and a sur-reply brief.1/ These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents the Board’s certified teachers, secretaries, custodians, assistants, library aides, nurse aides, office aides, preschool handicap aides, aides to classrooms, aides to classrooms, applied behavior analysis trainers, signing interpreter, technology support specialist, occupational therapist, intervener for deaf and blind, and other titles listed in the recognition clause of the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA). The Board and Association are parties to a CNA with a term of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027. ¶

Article 7 of the CNA sets forth the parties’ grievance procedure. Article 7.A.1. defines a grievance as “a claim by an employee or the Association based upon the interpretation, application, or violation of this agreement, policies or administrative decisions affecting terms and conditions of employment.” The grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration. Article 4 of the CNA is entitled “Employee Rights.” Article 4.E. is entitled “Just Cause Provision” and provides that no teacher or educational support personnel shall be disciplined without just cause and that any discipline “shall be subject to the grievance procedure.” ¶

The Board’s Sick and Personal Leave Policy 4150/4250 provides that it “reserves the right to specify the conditions under which leaves and absences may be taken when not otherwise covered by the terms of a negotiated agreement.” The Policy provides, in pertinent part: ¶

The board reserves the right to require sufficient proof of any professional staff member claiming sick leave pay, including a physician’s certification, of the professional staff member’s illness or disability. ¶

Any professional staff member absent on sick leave may be required to submit a physician’s written statement certifying his or her disability. Such statements may not be presumed to establish the professional staff member’s disability conclusively. ¶

On February 7, 2025, in anticipation of the Philadelphia Eagles potentially winning the Super Bowl on February 9, the Board’s Superintendent issued a memorandum to staff entitled “Super Bowl and Parade Absenteeism Protocols.” The memorandum notified staff that it was “implementing protocols for the use of sick leave for the day after the Super Bowl (Monday, February 10, 2025), as well as for the potential celebratory parade day (TBD), should the Eagles claim victory.” The memorandum provided: ¶

In order to address absenteeism on these dates, we will require a doctor’s note for anyone who calls out sick for their own personal illness or injury. If a doctor’s note is not provided for the aforementioned dates your sick leave will not be approved and subsequently will result in a dockage of pay. Personal leave requests are being addressed according to district policy and collective bargaining agreements. ¶

On May 30, 2025, the Board’s Director of Human Resources sent separate letters to three Association unit employees reiterating the February 7 memorandum concerning absences the day after the Super Bowl, and stating: ¶

Our records show that you were absent on Monday, February 10, 2025 to which you used a sick day and did not provide a medical note. I reached out to you on February 11, 2025 and again on February 18, 2025 to request this medical note to which you have been unable to provide. Subsequently, your June 15, 2025 payroll will result in a day without pay of your per diem amount of [applicable $ amount]. If this was an oversight on your part and you indeed can provide a medical note for your absence, please promptly forward that medical note to my attention before Monday, June 2, 2025 to avoid this payroll dockage. ¶

On June 16, 2025, the Association filed a grievance contesting the payroll deductions for the three unit employees for their sick day following the Eagles’ Super Bowl victory.2/ The grievance asserts that the CNA provides that while employees may be asked to provide a sick note, it is silent on any pay deduction due to no documentation for that sick day. The Association further argues there is no past practice of withholding pay for an employee sick day without documentation. On June 27, the Superintendent denied the grievance, noting that when an employee’s absence has not been approved, “the District has designated such a day as an unpaid day.” On July 2, the Association advanced the grievance to the Board, asserting that “[t]here is not a district policy or an agreement with the MLEA that allows the district to dock a member’s pay because they cannot provide a doctor’s note for a one day absence, due to illness.” On July 9, the Board, through its counsel, denied the grievance. On August 7, the Association filed a request for binding arbitration. This petition ensued. ¶

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). ¶

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 Board asserts it has a managerial prerogative to verify sick leave with a physician’s note and that N.J.S.A. 18A:30-4 also provides it with the right to maintain and enforce a sick leave verification requirement. The Board argues that it has a non-negotiable and non-arbitrable managerial prerogative to deny paid sick leave when an employee fails to comply with the sick leave verification procedure by not providing a doctor’s note. The Board contends that the Association’s grievance “seeks to avoid the natural consequences of violating the sick leave policy.” The Board asserts that allowing negotiation over its sick leave verification policy would significantly interfere with its governmental policy interest in reducing staff absenteeism. ¶

The Association asserts that while the employer’s establishment of a sick leave verification policy is a managerial prerogative, the employer’s application of that policy - including whether an employee was properly denied sick leave - is legally arbitrable. It argues that the Board incorrectly characterizes the grievance as a challenge to the Board’s sick leave verification policy rather than a challenge to the Board’s denial of sick leave and docking of a day’s pay for three employees who were sick but did not see a doctor. The Association contends that this case is nearly identical to a previous Commission case involving the denial of sick leave to an employee who did not provide a doctor’s note for the day of the Super Bowl Parade in 2018 following the Eagles’ previous Super Bowl victory. It asserts that the Commission must similarly find here that the Association can arbitrate the application of the sick leave verification policy, i.e., the denial of sick leave. ¶

N.J.S.A. 18A:30-4 establishes a board’s ability to require a physician’s certificate to verify sick leave. Moreover, it is well-settled that a public employer has a managerial prerogative to use reasonable means to verify employee illness, including requiring the production of a doctor’s note. See e.g., Carteret Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2009-71, 35 NJPER 213 (¶76 2009); N.J. State Judiciary (Ocean Vicinage), P.E.R.C. No. 2005-24, 30 NJPER 436 (¶143 2004); North Hudson Reg. Fire and Rescue, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-78, 26 NJPER 184 (¶31075 2000); City of Elizabeth, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-42, 26 NJPER 22 (¶31007 1999); and Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 82-64, 8 NJPER 95 (¶13039 1982). ¶

However, the application of a sick leave verification policy, e.g., whether an employee was improperly denied sick leave, the imposition of economic sanctions such as denial of pay, and whether just cause existed for the imposition of disciplinary penalties for violating sick leave or absenteeism policies, may be challenged through contractual grievance procedures including binding arbitration. City of Burlington Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-27, 45 NJPER 242 (¶64 2019), aff’d, 46 NJPER 226 (~52 App. Div. 2019), certif. den., 241 N.J. 82 (2020); Monroe Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-51, 46 NJPER 518 (¶115 2020) (grievance alleging “arbitrary docking of some employees’ pay” for attendance policy violation is arbitrable); N. Hudson Reg., P.E.R.C. No. 2000-78, supra ( “the penalties for violating sick leave and absenteeism policies, are mandatorily negotiable” ); Elizabeth, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-42, supra ( “arbitration may be invoked” for disciplinary sanctions for absenteeism including “docking of pay” ); State of New Jersey (Treasury), P.E.R.C. No. 95-67, 21 NJPER 129 (¶26080 1995) ( “what the disciplinary penalties will be for abusing sick leave” is mandatorily negotiable); and Piscataway, P.E.R.C. No. 82-64, supra ( “The application of the [sick leave verification] policy, however, may be subject to contractual grievance procedures.” ) ¶

In Teaneck Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 93-44, 19 NJPER 18 (¶24009 1992), the Commission confirmed that an employer does not need to negotiate over “a policy of denying sick leave benefits to employees who fail to comply with a verification requirement.” 19 NJPER at 19-20, n. 3. However, the Commission clarified that the imposition of that policy could still be contested in arbitration, not just based on claims of compliance with the sick leave verification policy, but also based on claims for why there could not be compliance. The Commission stated: ¶

In addition, a union may arbitrate claims that particular denials of benefits violated the contract because an employee justifiably could not comply with the verification requirement or because the employee complied and benefits were nevertheless denied. We therefore decline to restrain arbitration to the extent, if any, the grievance raises these issues. ¶

[Teaneck, 19 NJPER at 19.] ¶

In Burlington City Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-27, supra, the school board e-mailed staff notifying them that if they do not come to work on February 8, 2018 (the day of the Eagles’ Super Bowl Parade) due to personal illness, then they “will be required to provide a doctor’s note that indicates that you were unable to come to work due to illness.” An employee was absent on the day of the Super Bowl Parade due to personal illness. After the board requested a doctor’s note to verify his illness, he responded that he did not see a doctor because he had the flu and they do not want people with the flu in their offices. The board denied his sick leave for February 8 and advised him it would be either an unpaid leave absence or a personal business absence. The union filed a grievance challenging the denial of sick leave for that employee and all similarly situated employees. The board filed a petition seeking to restrain binding arbitration. The Commission, although finding that the board has a statutory and managerial right to require a doctor’s note to verify sick leave, denied the board’s request to restrain arbitration. Citing Commission precedent holding that “the application of a sick leave verification policy . . . may be challenged through contractual grievance procedures,” we found that the grievance challenged the denial of the employee’s sick leave after he failed to obtain a doctor’s note, not the board’s right to establish the sick leave verification policy. ¶

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Commission’s decision and the arbitrability of challenges to the application of sick leave verification policies. The Court held: ¶

Whether an employer may impose a disciplinary penalty in applying a sick leave verification policy may be reviewed through binding arbitration. New Jersey State Judiciary (Ocean Vicinage), P.E.R.C. No. 2005-24, 30 NJPER ~143 at 9-10 (2004). The Board argued PERC erred in allowing arbitration of its non-negotiable right to establish a sick leave verification policy. However, that is not the subject of the Association’s grievance. The Association challenged the application of the sick leave verification policy to Association members absent on February 8, 2018. . . . PERC’s decision that the Association’s grievance is arbitrable is fully supported by the evidence in the record. ¶

[Burlington City Bd. of Ed., *7-8.] ¶

Here, as in Burlington City Bd. of Ed., the Association has clarified that its grievance does not challenge the Board’s managerial prerogative to request doctor’s notes to verify sick leave absences on the day of the Eagles Super Bowl Parade.3/ Rather, similar to Burlington, the Association’s grievance challenges the application of the Board’s sick leave verification policy, specifically the deduction of a day’s pay from the paychecks of three employees who did not provide a doctor’s note for the days they sought to use sick leave during the week after the Eagles’ 2025 Super Bowl victory. Accordingly, consistent with Burlington and the above-cited Commission precedent, the Association’s grievance is legally arbitrable. See, e.g., Monroe Tp. Bd. of Ed.; N. Hudson Reg.; Elizabeth; State of New Jersey (Treasury); Piscataway, and Teaneck. ¶

Finally, we find the Board’s reliance on City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 85-26, 10 NJPER 551 (¶15256 1984), to be misplaced. In that case, certain employees did not sign new forms the board was requiring employees to complete to certify to the reasons for their requested sick or funeral leave. The case did not involve the application of a policy requiring the submission of a doctor’s note, and sick and funeral leave benefits were not denied based on the employees’ noncompliance. Rather, the Commission found that the certification form was a “reasonable and unintrusive requirement,” that “has only a slight and unintrusive impact on the teachers’ work and welfare” while supporting the board’s interest in combating sick leave abuse. The Commission noted that its result was limited to restraining arbitration based on sick leave being denied for the sole reason that employees refused to certify their absences were due to illness or due to a funeral, stating: “We stress that our result is predicated on the limited and undisputed facts of this case.” Newark, 10 NJPER at 552; see also Troy v. Rutgers, 168 N.J. 354, 383 (2001) ( “Questions concerning whether subjects are mandatorily negotiable should be made on a case-by-case basis.” ) As Newark is factually distinguishable from the instant case and constrained by its particular circumstances, we do not find it to be persuasive precedent. By contrast, Burlington, decided much more recently and affirmed by the Appellate Division, is nearly identical factually to the circumstances herein. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The request of the Mount Laurel Board of Education for a restraint of binding arbitration of the Mount Laurel Education Association’s grievance is denied. ¶

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/ N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(f) requires that all pertinent facts be supported by certifications based upon personal knowledge. Neither party submitted such a certification. ¶

2/ While the Board’s May 30, 2025 letters indicate February 10 (the day after the Super Bowl) as the absences for these employees, the Association’s grievance references February 14 absences (the day of the Super Bowl Parade), and the Board’s response to the grievance clarifies that for one staff member the absence without a doctor’s note was February 10 and for the other two it was February 14. ¶

3/ Or, in this case, additionally for the day after the Super Bowl for one employee. ¶