P.E.R.C. No. 2026-7, NJ Transit

Notice to employeesNOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NEW JERSEY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, We hereby notify our employees that: ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2021-091 Amalgamated Transit Union, New Jersey State Council, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission finds that NJBTO violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the Act when it unilaterally began removing employees' workers’ compensation benefits on a holiday, paying them holiday pay instead, and then reinstating workers’ compensation benefits on the day after the holiday. By doing so, NJTBO repudiated the CNA's Holiday Pay provision, which was interpreted by an arbitration award as requiring employees receiving workers' compensation benefits to be paid a full 8 hours of holiday pay in addition to their benefits. The Commission further finds that the workers' compensation statutes, N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 and 34:15-12(a), do not preempt the matter. Lastly, the Commission concludes that that paying employees eight hours of holiday pay in addition to workers’ compensation benefits would not create an impermissible “windfall” for a work- related injury. ¶

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 NEW JERSEY TRANSIT BUS OPERATIONS, INC., RESPONDENT, -and- Docket No. CO-2021-091 AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, NEW JERSEY STATE COUNCIL, CHARGING PARTY. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, attorneys (John J. Peirano, of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, Cohen, Leder, Montalbano & Connaughton, LLC, attorneys (Paul A. Montalbano, Esq., of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On November 6, 2020, the Amalgamated Transit Union ( “ATU” ) filed an unfair practice charge (UPC or charge) against New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. (NJTBO). The charge was later amended on March 4, 2021 and again on October 27, 2023. The charge alleges that NJTBO violated sections 5.4a(1), (3), and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4, et seq. (Act), when it unilaterally began removing employees from workers’ compensation benefits at the close of business on the day before a holiday and then reinstating those benefits on the day after the holiday. According to the charge, this unilateral change deprived employees of their workers’ compensation pay on the holiday. The ATU further alleges that this conduct repudiated the parties’ CNA, departed from past practice, and was taken in retaliation for the ATU prevailing in a grievance arbitration award ( “Award” ) confirming employees’ contractual rights to workers’ compensation and holiday pay benefits. ¶

Following the filing of the March 4, 2021 amended UPC, the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) issued a Complaint and Notice of Pre-Hearing on January 7, 2022. The Director issued the Complaint only on the alleged violations of subsections 5.4a(1) and (3), finding that the charge did not present sufficient facts to support the 5.4a(5) allegation. Thereafter, the parties and a Commission staff agent participated in several status conferences. On August 21, 2023, the Director sent an email to the parties confirming the outcome of a status conference held that same day, which provided that: 1) the ATU will file a motion to amend its charge to add a subsection a(5) claim; 2) NJTBO would have 10 days to respond; and 3) if the motion were granted, the ATU would withdraw its a(3) claim and the parties would prepare a Joint Stipulation of Facts and a Waiver of a Hearing Examiner Report. On September 25, the ATU filed its motion to amend, accompanied by a proposed second amended charge. NJBTO filed its opposition on October 6. On October 27, the Director granted the ATU’s motion permitting it to pursue the subsection a(5) claim.2/ ¶

On February 26, 2025, the ATU filed a brief, with exhibits, in support of its motion for summary judgment on subsection a(1) and (5) claims. On April 21, NJTBO filed its opposition brief seeking dismissal of the UPC with prejudice. On February 28, the parties agreed to waive a hearing examiner report and recommended decision, and instead submitted an executed Joint Stipulation of Facts pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-6.7. We incorporate that Stipulation in full below: ¶

JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS3/ ¶

BACKGROUND: ¶

1. The New Jersey Legislature created New Jersey Transit ( “NJT” ), and thereby its subsidiaries, one being [NJTBO] by the New Jersey Public Transportation Act of 1979 ( “NJPTA” ), N.J.S.A. 27:25-1 et. seq. ("NJPTA")[sic]. ¶

2. The New Jersey State Joint Council of Amalgamated Transit Union is the umbrella organization of nine (9) [ATU] Local Unions, Local 540, Local 819, Local 820, Local 821, Local 822, Local 823, Local 824, Local 825 and Local 880 (herein ¶

“ATU” ). ¶

3. NJTBO operates a public transportation system throughout the State of New Jersey. ¶

4. Certain employees of NJTBO are represented by several individual and distinct labor organizations, including ATU. ¶

5. All of the ATU affiliated Local Unions are covered by three (3) separate collective negotiated agreements: Hourly Employees, Field Salaried Employees and General Office Clerical Employees. ¶

6. The ATU and NJTBO, in each of the three (3) collectively negotiated agreements, negotiated provisions concerning Holiday Pay for bargaining unit members. Those provisions have appeared within the agreements for many years prior to September 1, 2010, and are at the following sections of each contract: ¶

(a) Hourly Agreement- Section 16D (Complete Agreement Jt. Exh. 1) ¶

(b) Field Salaried Agreement- Section 6B (Complete Agreement Jt. Exh. 2) ¶

(c) General Office Clerical Agreement- Section 6B (Complete Agreement Jt. Exh. 3) ¶

7. The Holiday Pay provision in each contract requires that the employee, if scheduled, must work the day before and the day after the holiday to be entitled to Holiday Pay. ¶

(a) Hourly Agreement- Section 16D ¶

(b) Field Salaried Agreement- Section 6B ¶

(c) General Office Clerical Agreement- Section 6B ¶

8. NJTBO and ATU negotiated and agreed that the Holiday Pay requirement for an employee “if scheduled, to work the day before and the day after a holiday to be entitled to holiday pay” will be excused or satisfied if the absence is caused by one of nine (9) reasons; one reason being that the absence was due to a Worker's Compensation injury or sickness. ¶

(a) Hourly Agreement- Appendix C ¶

(b) Field Salaries [sic] Agreement- Appendix C ¶

(c) General Office Clerical Agreement- Appendix C ¶

(all Appendix C's being identical) ¶

a. All three of the ATU contracts define Holiday Pay as eight (8) hours of straight time pay rate. ¶

GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION: ¶

9. For many years prior to September 1, 2010, during a week when a contractual Holiday occurred, NJTBO paid four (4) hours of Holiday Pay to ATU bargaining unit members receiving workers’ compensation, this in addition to the full amount of Workers’ Compensation weekly income benefit. ¶

10. On September 1, 2010, the ATU, on behalf of [an NJTBO employee], who was out of work receiving Workers Compensation, filed a grievance contending NJTBO was violating the contract by paying four hours of Holiday Pay rather than eight hours of Holiday Pay. ¶

11. The [employee’s] grievance was submitted to arbitration with an arbitrator being designated on May 4, 2016. ¶

12. On March 30, 2018, the Neutral Arbitrator, [Arbitrator], issued his Opinion and Award [Award]. ¶

13. On April 25, 2018, Union designated Arbitrator executed his concurrence, thereby making the [grievance arbitration] Award a majority Award. ¶

14. The majority Arbitration Opinion and Award sustained the grievance and determined NJTBO violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by paying four hours of Holiday Pay, rather than eight hours of Holiday Pay, citing provisions within the collective bargaining agreement. (Jt. Exh. 4) ¶

15. Immediately after the Award, NJTBO paid back pay of four (4) additional hours of straight time rate to employees out of work on Workers’ Compensation for each Holiday retroactive to March 29, 2017, and in adherence to the Award commencing paying one (1) day of Holiday Pay (eight (8) hours of straight time pay) to employees out of work receiving Workers’ Compensation. ¶

UNFAIR PRACTICE ALLEGATION: ¶

16. Shortly following the issuance of [the] Arbitrator[ ‘s] award, NJTBO implemented a change concerning Holiday Pay for ATU bargaining unit employees receiving workers’ compensation. The change was as follows. ¶

Before the start of the day of a Holiday, for those employees who suffered an on-the-job injury and receiving N.J. Workers' Compensation temporary income benefits, NJTBO removes those employees from N.J. Worker's Compensation temporary income benefits for the day of the Holiday, compensates the employee with eight (8) hours of Holiday Pay, and then at the start of the day after the Holiday, returned the employee to Workers' Compensation temporary income benefits. (herein the Implemented Change). ¶

17. The total amount paid to the employee in a Holiday week is less than a full week of Workers’ Compensation Temporary Disability Benefits and eight (8) hours of straight time pay. The employee does not receive both Holiday Pay and his/her full Workers’ Compensation income benefit. ¶

18. NJTBO did not provide ATU with a notice advising ATU of the Implemented Change set forth above, nor did NJTBO negotiate the Implemented Change. ¶

19. There were no intervening negotiated agreements between the date of the issuance of the [Arbitrator’s] Arbitration Award which required NJTBO to pay eight (8) hours, as opposed to four (4) hours of Holiday pay, and the date of the NJTBO Implemented Change. ¶

20. By adding the eight (8) hours of Holiday Pay into the Workers’ Compensation benefit, NJTBO’s weekly Workers’ Compensation payment to the employee, the total payment is sufficient to reach the statutory required amount of Workers’ Compensation weekly benefit payment. ¶

21. Since the date of the Implemented Change, for each and every subsequent occurring Holiday, NJTBO takes action to remove each employee on Workers’ Compensation from receiving Workers’ Compensation income benefits as of the end of the day before the start of the Holiday, pays the employee with eight (8) hours of Holiday Pay, and at the start of the day after the Holiday restores the employee into the Workers’ Compensation Temporary Disability benefit program. ¶

Additionally, after the parties’ filed their briefs, the Commission’s General Counsel sent a letter dated June 17, 2025, requesting supplemental information on several issues.4/ Specifically, that the parties address: 1) whether NJTBO’s decision to remove employees from workers’ compensation benefits on holidays is a negotiable issue pursuant to the negotiability standard applicable to NJTBO; 2)legal authority supporting or opposing the claim that challenges to workers’ compensation eligibility determinations fall exclusively within the Division of Workers’s Compensation (Division) and not PERC; and 3) certifications addressing whether an employee receiving both workers’ compensation benefits and eight hours of holiday pay could ever earn more in gross wages than if the employee had actually been working. ¶

The parties’ supplemental submissions establish the following facts: ¶

1. An NJTBO employee’s5/ gross weekly wages before receiving workers’ compensation benefits total $1,359.60 for a 40-hour work week. ¶

2. An employee’s gross weekly wages while receiving workers’ compensation benefits during a non-holiday week total approximately $951.30, which is 70% of the employee’s average weekly wages. ¶

3. An employee’s gross weekly wages while receiving workers’ compensation benefits plus four (4) hours of holiday pay total $1,087.68. ¶

4. An employee’s gross weekly wages while receiving workers’ compensation benefits plus eight (8) hours of holiday pay total $1,223.64. ¶

5. Under the Implemented Change - where employees were removed from workers’ compensation on a holiday, paid eight (8) hours of holiday pay, and then reinstated to workers’ compensation the following day - the gross weekly wages total $1,087.68. ¶

Accordingly, following the Implemented Change, an affected employee receives $135.96 less compensation than they would have received if they had remained on workers’ compensation and were paid eight hours of holiday pay. Moreover, the post-Implemented Change compensation is identical to the amount employees previously received when only four (4) hours of holiday pay were provided. ¶

Notably, NJTBO’s certification submitted with its supplemental submission asserts that no employee was paid both eight (8) hours of holiday pay and workers’ compensation benefits following the Award. This assertion directly conflicts with Joint Stipulation of Fact #15, which establishes that a group of employees did, in fact, receive eight (8) hours of holiday pay pursuant to the Award in addition to the workers’ compensation benefits they were already receiving. ¶

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶

Summary judgment will be granted if there are no material facts in dispute and the movant is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 73-75 (1954). N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(e) provides: ¶

If it appears from the pleadings, together with the briefs, affidavits and other documents filed that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant or cross-movant is entitled to its requested relief as a matter of law, the motion or cross-motion for summary judgment may be granted and the requested relief may be ordered. ¶

In determining whether there exists a “genuine issue” of material fact that precludes summary judgment, we must “consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 540. We “must grant all the favorable inferences to the non-movant.” Id. at 536. The summary judgment procedure is not to be used as a substitute for a plenary trial. Baer v. Sorbello, 177 N.J. Super. 183 (App. Div. 1981), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 388 (1981). Summary judgment “should be denied unless the right thereto appears so clearly as to leave no room for controversy.” Saldana v. DeMedio, 275 N.J. Super. 488, 495 (App. Div. 1995). ¶

ARGUMENTS ¶

The ATU argues that its summary judgment motion should be granted because NJTBO employees are contractually entitled to both workers’ compensation benefits and eight hours of holiday pay pursuant to the CNA and the Award. According to the ATU, NJTBO violated subsections a(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally enacting the Implemented Change without negotiations. The ATU maintains NJTBO’s unilateral action reduced the affected employees’ total compensation for workers’ compensation and holiday pay, thereby repudiating the CNA and the Award. ¶

NJTBO responds that the ATU has not met its burden of proving a violation of subsection a(5) based on the Joint Stipulation. NJTBO argues that the Stipulation establishes it complied with the Award by paying employees on workers’ compensation eight (8) hours of holiday pay. NJTBO asserts that this matter is preempted by provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1, et seq. Specifically, NJTBO relies on case law holding that employees who continue to receive pay following a workplace injury are either not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits or subject to a reduction in those benefits. NJTBO maintains that if the ATU wishes to challenge its eligibility determinations regarding workers’ compensation, the appropriate forum is the Division, not PERC.6/ ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

Negotiability standards under the New Jersey Public Transportation Act (NJPTA), N.J.S.A. 27:25-1 et seq.,7/ were established in New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc., P.E.R.C. No. 88-74, 14 NJPER 169 (¶19070 1988), rev’d, 233 N.J. Super. 173 (App. Div. 1989), rev’d and rem’d, 125 N.J. 41 (1991). Under that standard, “an issue that settles an aspect of the employment relationship is mandatorily negotiable unless negotiations over that issue would prevent NJTBO from fulfilling its statutory mission to provide a coherent public transportation system in the most efficient and effective manner.” New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, P.E.R.C. No. 2015-53, 41 NJPER 392 (¶123 2015) (citations omitted). The New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed this test, emphasizing that the key question is whether negotiations would substantially impair NJTBO’s ability to manage mass transit. N.J. Transit, 125 N.J. at 61. ¶

Payment of supplemental wages to employees receiving workers’ compensation benefits is a mandatorily negotiable subject that does not prevent NJTBO from fulfilling its statutory mission to provide a coherent public transportation system in the most efficient and effective manner. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and ATU, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-61, 39 NJPER 424 (¶136 2013); New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and ATU, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-031, 44 NJPER 310 (¶87 2018). The payment of such wages is also mandatorily negotiable for other public employers. Cty. of Morris v. Morris Council No. 6, No. A-194-78 (App. Div. Nov. 2, 1979), aff’ ing P.E.R.C. No. 79-2, 4 NJPER 304 (¶4153 1978); City of East Orange, P.E.R.C. No. 2000-14, 25 NJPER 405 (¶30176 1999), aff’ ing H.E. No. 99-23, 25 NJPER 354 (¶30150 1999); see also Tp. of Riverside, H.E. No. 95-1, 20 NJPER 303 (¶25152 1994), adopted P.E.R.C. No. 95-7, 20 NJPER 325 (¶25167 1994). Thus, a public employer has the ability to negotiate over supplemental wages to workers’ compensation benefits, but does not have to agree to provide such wages. ¶

Here, the CNA Holiday Pay provision - stipulated by the parties - provides that the employees qualify for holiday pay if they work the day before and after the holiday, or if they are absent due to a workers’ compensation injury. After NJTBO reduced holiday pay for employees receiving workers’ compensation from eight (8) to four (4) hours, the ATU filed a grievance. The Grievance Arbitration Award held that employees on workers’ compensation are entitled to a full eight (8) hours of holiday pay and ordered NJTBO to comply retroactive to March 29, 2017. ¶

NJTBO did not move to vacate the Award. Instead, NJTBO later implemented a unilateral change: removing employees from workers’ compensation on holidays, paying them eight (8) hours of holiday pay, then reinstating them to workers’ compensation the next day (the “Implemented Change” ). The Implemented Change reduced employees’ weekly income compared to what they would have received under both the CNA and the Award. ¶

NJTBO asserts that it had a managerial prerogative to make the Implemented Change as this matter is preempted by workers’ compensation statutes, specifically N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 and N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(a).8/ However, these statutes do not preempt negotiation over supplemental wages for employees already deemed eligible for workers’ compensation. A statute or regulation must “must speak comprehensively and in the imperative if it is to be given preemptive effect.” Bethlehem Twp. Board of Education, 91 N.J. 38, 48 (1982). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 provides, “The [Division] shall have the exclusive original jurisdiction of all claims for workers’ compensation benefits under this chapter.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 does not preempt parties negotiating over supplemental wages to workers’ compensation benefits, but rather vests the Division with original jurisdiction to determine workers’ compensation claims. ¶

We previously considered this statute in two prior disputes between these same parties. In those cases, we found that N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 did not preempt employees already deemed eligible for workers’ compensation benefits and receiving those benefits from also receiving wages in the form of negotiated retroactive salary increases. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and ATU, P.E.R.C. No. 2013-61, supra; see also New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and ATU, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-031, supra (finding that the question raised was the same issue raised in P.E.R.C. No. 2013-61, and therefore res judicata demanded the same result); compare with New Jersey Turnpike Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 2012-6, 38 NJPER 136 (& 36 2011) (finding not mandatorily negotiable a claim for supplementary workers’ compensation benefits that was provided in the CNA because the employee’s injury in the first instance was deemed not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, finding that eligibility determination was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division). Applying the above precedent, when employees have already been deemed eligible for workers’ compensation by the Division, the agreement between a public employer and a majority representative to provide supplemental wages does not implicate N.J.S.A. 34:15-49.9/ ¶

Next, NJTBO asserts that this matter is preempted by N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(a). This statute sets minimum and maximum levels for benefits resulting from workers’ compensation claims. It does not speak comprehensively or in the imperative about any prohibitions against an employer negotiating supplemental wages for employees receiving workers’ compensation benefits as NJTBO did here. City of East Orange, supra (finding N.J.S.A. 34:15- 12(a) does not preempt a claim over the City’s unilateral reduction in the rate at which it paid workers compensation benefits from 100% to 70%). ¶

NJTBO further argues that paying employees a full eight hours of holiday pay in addition to workers’ compensation benefits would create an impermissible “windfall” or result in double wages for a work-related injury.10/ The parties’ supplemental submissions, however, analyzed several scenarios involving a hypothetical employee receiving workers’ compensation benefits under the CNA’s Holiday Pay provision. Those figures demonstrate that no employee would receive a windfall from being paid both benefits. In weeks with a holiday, the hypothetical employee earned $135.96 more when receiving eight (8) hours of holiday pay than when subject to the Implemented Change or limited to four (4) hours of holiday pay. Importantly, the submissions also show that receiving both workers’ compensation benefits and eight (8) hours holiday pay never results in weekly income exceeding what the employee would have earned had they actually been working. ¶

Finally, NJTBO argues that the Implemented Change renders affected employees ineligible for workers’ compensation on holidays because they no longer have “lost wages,” as they receive eight (8) hours of holiday pay on those days. This argument overlooks the Award, which expressly held that employees “on workers compensation” are entitled to eight (8) hours of holiday pay pursuant to the CNA’s Holiday Pay provision. By paying holiday pay but withholding workers’ compensation benefits on holidays, the Implemented Change repudiates the CNA as interpreted by the Award. ¶

Accordingly, NJTBO violated N.J.S.A. 34-13A-5.4 a(1) and (5) when it repudiated the CNA’s Holiday Pay provision as interpreted by the Award. NJTBO did not seek to vacate the Award. Therefore, if NJTBO seeks to change the Holiday Pay provision, its obligation under the Act is to negotiate before doing so. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The ATU’s motion for summary judgment is granted. NJTBO is to make whole all employees affected by the Implemented Change following the issuance of the Award. If the parties cannot come to a resolution, the parties may request a hearing to determine the extent and remedy for damages, if any, for this N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (5) violation. The 5.4a(3) allegations is dismissed. ¶

NJTBO is ordered to: ¶

A. Cease and desist from: ¶

1. Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. ¶

2. Refusing to negotiate with the majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, particularly by removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. ¶

B. Take this action: ¶

1. Make whole employees who had their workers’ compensation benefits removed the day before a contractual holiday and then had their workers’ compensation benefits reinstated the day after the contractual holiday without negotiations. ¶

2. Negotiate in good faith with the ATU before removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. ¶

3. Post in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked as Appendix "A." Copies of such notice shall, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted immediately and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days. ¶

Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other materials. ¶

4. Notify the Chair of the Commission within twenty (20) days of receipt what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with this order. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: September 25, 2025 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Notice to employeesWE SHALL cease and desist from interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. WE SHALL cease and desist from refusing to negotiate with the majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, particularly by removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. WE SHALL make whole employees who had their workers’ compensation benefits removed the day before a contractual holiday and then had their workers’ compensation benefits reinstated the day after the contractual holiday without negotiations. WE SHALL negotiate in good faith with the ATU before removing NJTBO employees’ workers’ compensation benefits the day before a contractual holiday and then reinstating their workers’ compensation benefits the day after the contractual holiday. ¶

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” ; “(3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage 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 employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative.” ¶

2/ All iterations of the ATU’s charge include 5.4a(1),(3), and (5) claims. However, the ATU has only provided argument in support of the subsection a(1) and (5) allegations. In light of the procedural history of the subsection a(3) charge and the lack of briefing on that claim, we find ATU intended to withdraw the subsection a(3) allegations. ¶

3/ The parties’ Joint Stipulation of Facts are reproduced verbatim. Any modifications are in brackets. ¶

4/ The General Counsel’s letter requested the supplemental information be provided by July 14, 2025. On July 14, the ATU submitted its supplemental information. That same day, NJTBO requested additional time to submit its supplemental information. On July 16, NJTBO filed its supplemental information. Due to the additional time given to NJTBO, ATU was given an opportunity to provide an additional response, which it did on August 1. ¶

5/ The parties’ certifications pertained to weekly gross compensation of a hypothetical NJTBO employee, and were mainly in agreement. The ATU provided additional certifications, with payroll records as exhibits, from two employees, the President of ATU Local 540 (Local President) and a bus operator to support its compensation amounts. ¶

6/ NJTBO’s August 16, 2015 supplemental brief mainly reiterates these arguments regarding the preemptive effect of the workers’ compensation statutes and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation to determine workers’ compensation disputes. ¶

7/ N.J.S.A. 27:25-2 provides in pertinent part: ¶

a. The provision of efficient, coordinated, safe and responsive public transportation is an essential public purpose which promotes mobility, serves the needs of the transit dependent, fosters commerce, conserves limited energy resources, protects the environment and promotes sound land use and the revitalization of our urban centers. ¶

b. As a matter of public policy, it is the responsibility of the State to establish and provide for the operation and improvement of a coherent public transportation system in the most efficient and effective manner. ¶

8/ NJTBO also claims preemption by various workers’ compensation statutes and regulations which concern the process for filing a workers’ compensation claim. In light of the legal analysis and findings of this decision, those statutes and regulations do not warrant discussion. ¶

9/ Notably, NJTBO did not appeal any of these prior cases nor does it explain why this precedent does not apply to the same arguments it is raising in this dispute. ¶

10/ NJTBO cites to cases that do not warrant extended discussion due to those cases being factually dissimilar to this case. Young v. Western Electric Co., 96 N.J. 220 (1984), which addressed the issue of whether workers’ compensation benefits should be offset by disability pension benefits; Outland v. Monmouth-Ocean Educational Services Commission, 154 N.J. 531 (1998), which addressed whether a teacher was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits during the summer after having received her full pay for the school year; and Vetri v. Utica Nat'l Ins. Co., No. A-2893-07T1 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 28, 2009) which found that an employee receiving both full salary and temporary disability benefits improperly compensates that employee twice for the same injury. ¶

Notice to employeesDocket No. CO-2021-091 New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. (Public Employer) Date: By: This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Public Employment Relations Commission, 495 West State Street, PO Box 429, Trenton, NJ 08625-0429 (609) 292-9830 APPENDIX “A” ¶