P.E.R.C. No. 2026-6, Dunellen B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of Dunellen Board of Education Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-143 Dunellen Education Association Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms the Director of Unfair Practice’s refusal to issue a complaint on an unfair practice charge filed by the Dunellen Education Association against the Dunellen Board of Education. The charge alleges that the Board unilaterally changed the terms of conditions of employment of teachers by assigning additional non- teaching duties that were unrelated to student safety, control and supervision. The Commission finds that because a CNA provision allows the Board to assign non-teaching duties, this matter is a good faith contractual dispute that should be adjudicated via the parties’ grievance procedure. ¶

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 DUNELLEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2025-143 DUNELLEN Education Association, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Detzky, Hunter & DeFillippo, LLC, attorneys (David J. DeFillippo, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Schenck Price, LLP, attorneys (Joseph L. Roselle, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

The Dunellen Education Association (Association) appeals the Director of Unfair Practices Decision, D.U.P. No. 2026-1, 52 NJPER 43 (¶9 2025), which refused to issue a Complaint on an unfair practice charge (UPC) filed against the Dunellen Board of Education (Board). The UPC alleged that the Board violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.,1/ when it unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment of teachers by assigning them additional work that was not related to student safety, control, or supervision. ¶

On February 26, 2025, the Association filed a UPC containing the following facts as summarized: ¶

The Association is the majority representative for teachers (among other employees) employed by the Board. The Board and the Association are parties to a series of collective negotiations agreements, the most recent of which is in effect from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027. Article 12, Paragraph A, of the CNA states in relevant part: “Teachers shall be required on an equitable basis to perform non-teaching duties as scheduled by their respective Administrators.” ¶

The Association certifies in the UPC that “[p]rior to the 2024-2025 school year, such non-teaching duties ‘typically’ consisted of study hall supervision; classroom coverage; lunch duty; etc......, [sic] all of which related to student safety, control and supervision.” (Emphasis added). ¶

The Association further alleges that, beginning in the 2024- 2025 school year, certain teachers were required to perform clerical tasks such as data entry, test prepping, and student evaluations, which increased employees’ workload and were not related to student safety, control, or supervision. ¶

In December 2024, the Association asserts that its President submitted a demand that the Board rescind the additional work assignments or negotiate additional compensation for their performance. The Association further claims that the parties met and discussed the Association’s proposal for additional compensation in the form of additional duty-free prep periods. The Association further contends that the parties were unable to come to an agreement because the Superintendent insisted that the extra duties did not entitle the affected members to any additional benefit or compensation. ¶

Following the filing of the UPC, an exploratory conference was held and both parties submitted position statements. The conference did not resolve the matter, and on July 17, 2025, the Director declined to issue a complaint. The Director determined that the UPC “essentially [was] a contract dispute where both parties have different, yet equally plausible, interpretations of Article 12, Section A,” and that “good-faith contract disputes are outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and must be resolved through the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure.” ¶

The Association filed this appeal with a supporting letter brief and exhibits on July 24, 2025. The Board filed its letter brief in opposition on July 30, 2025. ¶

A charging party must satisfy the following pleading requirement, in pertinent part: ¶

(a) Such charge . . . shall contain the following: ¶

. . . ¶

3. A clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair practice. The statement must specify the date and place the alleged acts occurred, the names of the persons alleged to have committed such acts, the subsection(s) of the Act alleged to have been violated, and the relief sought. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.3.] ¶

Our standard for issuing a complaint on an unfair practice charge is as follows: ¶

After a charge has been processed, if it appears to the Director of Unfair Practices that the allegations of the charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices on the part of the respondent, and that formal proceedings should be instituted in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues, the Director shall issue and serve a formal complaint including a notice of hearing before a hearing examiner at a stated time and place. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a).] ¶

The Association argues that its UPC satisfied the Commission’s complaint-issuance standard because its allegations concern the Board’s unilateral change in the assignment of non- teaching duties that are unrelated to student safety, control, or supervision. In the Association’s view, the assignment of work beyond this scope is not contemplated by the contract and is mandatorily negotiable. Thus, the unilateral change in the past practice limiting the assignment of non-teaching related work could, if true, violate the Act. ¶

In opposition, the Board argues that the Director correctly declined to issue a complaint because the Association’s allegations essentially claim that the Board breached the CNA, rather than alleging a refusal to negotiate in good faith. The Board concurs with the Director’s determination that the matter is a good-faith contractual dispute, which should be adjudicated before a grievance arbitrator rather than through the unfair practice charge process. ¶

The Commission affirms the Director’s refusal to issue a complaint because the UPC alleges a mere contractual dispute. Even if the Board refused to negotiate over the assignment of work unrelated to student safety, control, or supervision, the parties’ previously negotiated contractual language governed the issue. As explained below, the interpretation of that language is best suited for the grievance process and not this agency’s unfair practice jurisdiction. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 entitles a majority representative to negotiate on behalf of employees over terms and conditions of employment. Section 5.3 also defines an employer’s duty to negotiate before changing working conditions: ¶

Proposed new rules or modifications of existing rules governing working conditions shall be negotiated with the majority representative before they are established. ¶

[N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3.] ¶

Consequently, employers may not unilaterally alter prevailing terms and conditions of employment because such changes circumvent the statutory duty to negotiate. Galloway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Galloway Tp. Ed. Ass’n, 78 N.J. 25 (1978); Hunterdon Cty. and CWA, 116 N.J. 322 (1980). This includes terms and conditions of employment “established by [] contract or by past practice, without first bargaining to impasse.” Atlantic City, 230 N.J. 237, 252 (2017). However, an employer will not have been found to violate N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(5) by failing to negotiate if the term and condition of employment is not mandatorily negotiable. ¶

The assignment of non-teaching duties that are related to student safety, control, or supervision is 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). ¶

Allegations setting forth at most a mere breach of contract do not warrant the exercise of the Commission's unfair practice jurisdiction. State of NJ (DHS), P.E.R.C. No. 84-148, 10 NJPER 419 (¶15191 1984). An employer that negotiates a grievance procedure for resolving disputes and “is willing to abide by those negotiated procedures, does not refuse to negotiate in good faith simply because its interpretation of an unclear contract clause may ultimately prove to be mistaken.” Ibid. ¶

Since there can be no precise demarcation between a mere breach of contract claim and a refusal to negotiate in good faith claim the Commission must closely examine whether the UPC alleges a repudiation of an existing term and condition of employment. State of NJ (DHS), 10 NJPER at 422. Repudiation may be alleged where a contract clause that is so clear that an inference of bad faith arises from a refusal to honor it or by factual allegations indicating that the employer has changed the parties’ past and consistent practice in administering a disputed clause. Id. at 423. ¶

As the Director correctly determined, this dispute revolves around the interpretation of Article 12 of the CNA. The Association alleges the parties intended this provision to apply only to the equitable assignment of non-teaching duties involving student safety, supervision, or control. However, since the provision does not explicitly limit the types of extra duties the Board may assign, the Board’s interpretation is equally plausible that it was intended to cover the disputed duties. We additionally find that the Association’s filings do not sufficiently allege that the Board unilaterally abrogated a binding past practice regarding the administration of Article 12, which would trigger this agency’s unfair practice jurisdiction. Accordingly, this matter must be resolved through the parties’ negotiated grievance procedure. ¶

The Director of Unfair Practices refusal to issue a complaint is affirmed. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Commission affirms D.U.P. No. 2026-1. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: September 25, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ 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 employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶