P.E.R.C. No. 2027-1, Camden Housing Auth

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CAMDEN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-013 AFSCME COUNCIL 63, Respondents, -and- JULIA ANDERSON, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Julia Anderson’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of her interim relief application against her former employer, Camden County Housing Authority, and her majority representative, AFSCME Council 63. Anderson’s application sought to enjoin the Authority from restructuring its public housing department by subcontracting unit work, alleging it violated the CNA and could impact her potential remedy in a pending arbitration for her reinstatement following her September 2024 termination. The Commission affirms the Director’s determination, finding that: (1) Anderson lacks standing to challenge the subcontracting decision because she is a former employee whose termination of employment predated the plan, (2) the Authority is not an educational employer subject to the subcontracting amendments, (3) any duty to negotiate over the issue lies strictly between AFSCME and the Authority, and (4) Anderson did not satisfy PERC regulations by failing to submit a certification with personal knowledge of the facts alleged. ¶

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 CAMDEN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-013 AFSCME COUNCIL 63, Respondents, -and- JULIA ANDERSON, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Julia Anderson, pro se ¶

For the Respondent, Camden County Housing Authority, Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys (Louis R. Lessig, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, AFSCME Council 63, Beckett & Paris, attorneys (David Beckett, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On March 16, 2026, Julia Anderson filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission seeking to reverse the Director of Unfair Practices’ March 13 denial of her interim relief application. Anderson’s interim relief application sought an order maintaining the status quo ante by enjoining the Camden County Housing Authority (Authority) from implementing a restructuring of the public housing department, which is alleged to include subcontracting of negotiations unit work and layoffs of employees. We summarize the pertinent facts and procedural history as follows.1/ ¶

Anderson is a former employee of the Authority who is contesting her dismissal from employment. While employed, she was represented by AFSCME Council 63 (AFSCME).2/ On March 6, 2026, Anderson made an application for interim relief seeking to enjoin the subcontracting of certain job functions performed by AFSCME members at the Authority in the public housing department. She followed this application with several additional emails and filings the same day, with more on March 7 and March 9. Anderson, at length, questions the wisdom of the decision of the Authority to subcontract and contends it violates the CNA between AFSCME and the Authority. Anderson also writes that the Authority only “provid[ed] employees [] offboarding paperwork and no written operational transition explanation at the Tuesday meeting” where those employees “were reportedly not permitted to ask questions.” Anderson also complains that AFSCME did not inform her of the restructuring plan where she has a pending arbitration seeking her reinstatement, and that its representation related to the subcontracting of unit work is inadequate. Anderson also claims that her former position would be eliminated should the work she performed be subcontracted, which would have an impact on the remedy available to her, should the Authority ever be ordered to reinstate her.3/ ¶

On March 13, 2026, the Director of Unfair Practices denied Anderson’s request for interim relief. The Director determined that she did not possess standing to assert claims alleging the improper transferring of collective negotiations unit work to a non-unit title. Thus, the Director found Anderson had not established the right to relief under Crowe, in that her application had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. This appeal followed.4/ The Authority and AFSCME have not filed opposition. ¶

N.J.A.C. 19:14-9.6 ( “Motions for reconsideration of interim relief decisions” ) provides, in pertinent part: ¶

After an interim relief decision has been issued, a party may move for reconsideration before the Commission. Any motion pursuant to this section shall be filed within 15 days of service of the interim relief decision, together with proof of service of a copy on all other parties. Reconsideration will only be granted based on a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance. The movant shall specify and bear the burden of establishing the grounds warranting reconsideration. ¶

Anderson argues that the Director improperly considered her interim relief application under a 5.4a(5) claim that negotiations unit work may not be transferred to non-unit personnel without negotiation with the majority representative. Instead, Anderson asks the Commission to review her application under the subcontracting amendments to the Act in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-44 to -49. Anderson also argues that the subcontracting of her former position could impact the remedy she may receive at the conclusion of a pending arbitration seeking her reinstatement. She also contends that extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance exist that warrant granting her application because otherwise individual employees would be unable to litigate their rights. In the alternative, Anderson seeks the ability to amend and resubmit her application. ¶

We deny Anderson’s motion for reconsideration and request to amend her interim relief application. We agree with the Director that Anderson does not possess standing to assert her claims that the Authority has improperly sought to implement the subcontracting of negotiations unit work. ¶

Anderson lacks standing to challenge the Authority’s decision to subcontract because: (1) Anderson is a former employee and the alleged decision to subcontract her position occurred well after her employment was terminated;5/ (2) the Authority is not subject to the provisions of the subcontracting amendments that allow individuals to assert claims;6/ and (3) to the extent there is an obligation to negotiate over the impact of the decision to subcontract, those negotiations must take place between AFSCME and the Authority.7/ ¶

We also note that Anderson has not satisfied the filing requirements for interim relief applications. N.J.A.C. 19:14- 9.2(b) mandates that an “application for interim relief shall include an order to show cause, shall state the relief sought, and shall be supported by an affidavit or verified charge or petition if it relies on facts not already in the record.” (emphasis added). Anderson’s filing does not contain an affidavit certifying that the facts included in the record are true and that an individual has personal knowledge of those facts. For example, Anderson includes information regarding a “Tuesday meeting” between the Authority and affected employees of the subcontracting decision. However, the filing does not establish how Anderson could have first-hand knowledge of such a meeting when she has not been employed since September 2024, nor is that information certified by another individual with personal knowledge. ¶

For all the above reasons, Anderson’s motion for reconsideration and request to amend her interim relief application is denied. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

Julia Anderson’s motion for reconsideration and request to amend her interim relief application is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey, Eaton, Higgins, Hines and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: August 27, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ We note that the record is very limited as to the specifics of the alleged subcontracting plan. ¶

2/ Anderson has an active unfair practice charge (UPC) currently before the Commission. This UPC alleges that the Authority interfered with her rights under the Act and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity, including by terminating her from employment shortly after September 12, 2024. The UPC also alleges that AFSCME violated the Act in the way it has represented her since her termination. ¶

3/ Anderson does not provide a certification that she has personal knowledge of the facts she incorporates in her application for interim relief. The application, even if it was certified, does not establish how Anderson would know specifics regarding the intent to subcontract. ¶

4/ Anderson filed additional correspondence and documents related to her UPC on August 20, 2026. For purposes of this motion for reconsideration, the filing is untimely and not part of the record. Nonetheless, the filing was reviewed, and does not change the outcome of the motion. ¶

5/ The Act only applies to public employers and employees. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, -5.4; N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.1. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3(d) defines the term “employee,” and only includes separated employees if their “work has ceased as a consequence of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment.” Anderson’s employment ceased in September 2024, and it is alleged that the subcontracting plan was announced in March 2026, thus, her separation could not have been caused by a current labor dispute. ¶

6/ While the subcontracting amendments to the Act permit individuals to file an unfair practice charge if they are affected by an improper subcontracting decision (N.J.S.A. 34:13A-48), those amendments only apply to educational employers. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-44. The Authority is not an educational employer. ¶

7/ Only a majority representative has standing to pursue a claim that a public employer has breached its duty to negotiate in good faith. See New Jersey Turnpike Auth. P.E.R.C. No. 81-64, 6 NJPER (¶11284 1980) aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 101 (¶85 App. Div. 1981). ¶