P.E.R.C. No. 2027-11, Trenton

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF TRENTON, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-021 PBA LOCAL NO. 11, Appellant. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms an interest arbitration award issued to settle successor contract negotiations between the City and the PBA. The PBA appealed, arguing that the arbitrator erred by: denying some of the PBA’s requested subpoenas; not making adverse inferences against the City for its failure to provide the requested base salary cost for all unit members; having the PBA recalculate its cost-outs prior to the second day of hearing based on the City’s roster of unit members; and denying the PBA’s compensatory time proposal. The PBA also argued that the arbitrator’s cost analysis of his award was flawed and that the arbitrator failed to adequately consider the 16g statutory factors of private sector wages, cost of living, and continuity and stability of employment. The Commission finds that the arbitrator appropriately considered the PBA’s subpoena proffers and explained his reasoning for denying some. The Commission finds that the arbitrator did not err in exercising his discretion to proceed with the hearing based on the PBA’s cost-outs and then relying on the City’s roster of unit members when requesting that the PBA update its cost-outs prior to the second day of hearing. The Commission also finds that the arbitrator explained the weight he afforded to the 16g statutory factors, demonstrated his consideration of the parties’ evidence and arguments on each proposal, and explained his reasoning for each element of the award in light of the record. ¶

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 CITY OF TRENTON, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2026-021 PBA LOCAL NO. 11, Appellant. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Simmons Law LLC, attorneys (Charles R.G. Simmons, of counsel) ¶

For the Appellant, Sciarra, Catrambone, Curran, and Gray, LLC, attorneys (Christopher A. Gray, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On September 4, 2026, PBA Local No. 11 (PBA) appealed an interest arbitration award setting forth the terms of its successor agreement between its negotiations unit of non- supervisory police officers (patrol officers and detectives) and the City of Trenton (City). The City and PBA are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) covering the period of January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023. On June 2, 2026, the PBA filed a Petition to Initiate Compulsory Interest Arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16b(2) to resolve disputes during collective negotiations for a successor agreement. On June 4, the interest arbitrator was appointed by random selection. On June 29, the arbitrator conducted a pre-hearing mediation session at which a voluntary settlement could not be reached. The same day, the arbitrator sent the parties a scheduling letter requesting that the City provide him and the PBA the base salary and unit employee information required by N.J.A.C. 19:17-5.7, as well as requesting that the parties submit final offers on all economic and non-economic issues in dispute along with estimates of the total financial impact of their offers. (PBA Exhibit E). ¶

On June 30, 2026, the arbitrator wrote to the parties concerning the PBA’s request for the issuance of nine subpoenas for the arbitration hearing. The arbitrator expressed his “concerns about their relevance and necessity,” and belief that “[t]he requests include individuals who have no apparent connection to the negotiations and/or whose testimony may be duplicative of other testimony.” (PBA Exhibit F). He therefore required the PBA to submit written proffers for each proposed witness. On July 1, the PBA submitted written proffers for its requested witnesses. (PBA Exhibit G). On July 3, the arbitrator granted two of the five requested subpoenas for certain state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) officials, and two of the four requested subpoenas for certain City officials. (PBA Exhibit H). Additionally, although the arbitrator did not grant the PBA’s subpoena request for her, the City’s Business Administrator (BA) was called by the City to testify as a witness during the arbitration hearing. (PBA Exhibit C). ¶

The parties and arbitrator engaged in additional pre-hearing correspondence concerning the City’s inability to produce all of the requested salary and unit member information in a scattergram indicating the costs of all base salary items for all unit members during the “base year” (the last year of the expired CNA) and their salaries and salary guide steps/increments as of the last day of the expired CNA (December 31, 2023). (PBA Exhibits I through M). On July 8, the City supplied salary information about unit members from its payroll systems but stated that “the City does not have the personnel who can create the scattergram that is required for interest arbitration.” (PBA Exhibit L). On July 10, the arbitrator informed the parties that the City’s spreadsheet was not responsive to his June 29 request. (PBA Exhibit M; Award at 2). As a result, the arbitrator stated: ¶

At the hearing, I will be constrained to use the best available evidence. PBA 11 indicates that they have calculated a base salary and other information as of the end of 2023. I am requesting that the PBA provide the City and the arbitrator with that information as soon as possible. The City’s failure to provide the financial information that is required for this hearing in an understandable format may result in inferences as warranted by the record. ¶

[Arbitrator’s July 10, 2026 letter.] ¶

The PBA submitted its final offer on July 10, 2026, along with its cost-out of its final offer and its roster of 176 police officers from the end of 2023. (PBA Exhibit N). The City submitted its final offer on July 13, which it revised on July 15 prior to the commencement of the official hearing. (PBA Exhibit O; Award at 3; 1T4). The PBA objected to the City’s lack of a scattergram or expected financial impact or cost-out of its final offer. (PBA Exhibit P; Award at 3). On July 13, the arbitrator responded that he would accept the City’s final offer, but that - as he noted in previous correspondence - the City’s failure to fully provide all of the requested information “may impact the overall evaluation of the evidence in this matter, and the weight given to the City’s positions.” (PBA Exhibit Q). ¶

The PBA’s final offer included the following over a four- year contract (Award at 6-8): ¶

• For 2024, a 2% across-the-board (ATB) salary increase as the parties agreed to in Section 2.05 of the 2019-2023 CNA; ¶

• For 2025, increase in starting salary to $50,000, increase in the top step of the salary guide to $113,552, and a reduction of the salary guide to 9 steps; ¶

• For 2026, a 2.5% raise at the top and bottom of the salary guide; ¶

• For 2027, a 3% raise from the bottom of the salary guide through step 8, and increase of the top step (new step 9) to $122,000. ¶

The PBA proposed changes to the CNA’s compensatory time language to provide for 1.5 times regular pay for all overtime, with the option of monetary compensation or compensatory time off. The PBA proposed a change to the CNA’s uniform allowance language to be $2,250 annually to be paid semi-annually. ¶

The City’s final offer included the following over a four- year contract (Award at 8-9): ¶

• Continuing all step increments, longevity, and stipends that the PBA members receive pursuant to expired CNA; ¶

• 0% ATB raises for each contractual year; ¶

• Increase of 2% to the top step (step 12 of 2023 salary guide) every year from 2024-2027. ¶

Interest arbitration hearings were held on July 15 and 16, 2026. (Award at 3; PBA Exhibits C and D). The PBA called seven witnesses to testify, including two DCA officials, two City officials, two PBA officials, and the PBA’s municipal finance expert, Dr. Caprio. Id. On the morning of July 16, prior to the start of the second day of hearing, the parties worked on reconciling the differences in headcount for the total number of unit members at the end of 2023. (Award at 4; 2T4-2T11; 2T64-68). The PBA’s expert witness was provided with the City’s unit member information to utilize for costing out the parties’ proposals. Ibid. The arbitrator described this part of the proceedings and his decision to utilize the City’s headcount as follows: ¶

On July 16, 2026, the parties met for an extended period and produced a scattergram and payout that will be utilized for these proceedings. The PBA maintained its reservation regarding the accuracy of the headcount, which it believed was lower. However, they agreed to proceed using the City’s headcount of 212. ¶

I find that the City’s payroll records, as reviewed by the PBA, constitute the best available evidence of the bargaining unit composition, salary distribution, and base salary for purposes of this proceeding. Accordingly, the following data will be used to evaluate the parties’ proposals and the economic impact of this Award. ¶

[Award at 4.] ¶

The parties filed post-hearing briefs on July 27, 2026. ¶

On August 20, 2026, the arbitrator issued a conventional award as required pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16d. A conventional award is crafted by an arbitrator after considering the parties’ final offers in light of the nine statutory factors. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g(1)-(9). The arbitrator found that the City faces significant structural financial challenges and “remains highly dependent upon State funding” through funds such as Transitional Aid, Capital City Aid, State Aid, and grants that “are not guaranteed from year to year and are subject to external control.” (Award at 25). The arbitrator found that the City has surpluses in its police salary accounts and general operating budget. (Award at 26). However, the arbitrator noted that the City anticipates utilizing more than $5 million more in 2026 from its surplus than it did in 2025, and that “[e]xcessive reliance on surplus to fund current expenditures is not considered a financial best practice.” (Award at 25-26). The arbitrator also recognized that the City’s police department has a significant “recruitment and retention problem” as stipulated by the parties and established by the record, which would support salary increases to the bottom steps and top step of the salary guide. (Award at 26-27). Overall, the arbitrator concluded: “After consideration of the entire record and the statutory criteria, neither party’s final offer is supportable.” (Award at 26). ¶

The arbitrator awarded the following salary components over a four-year contract from 2024-2027 (Award at 28-29): ¶

• Continuation of all previously agreed to salary steps/increments and longevity; ¶

• For 2024, 2% ATB raises for all that the parties agreed to in their previous CNA to provide retroactively for 2024 after the completion of successor contract negotiations; ¶

• For 2025, 2026, and 2027, 3% annual salary increases for the bottom two steps (Academy and step one), 2% annual salary increases for the top step, and 0% salary increases (increment only) for all other steps. ¶

The arbitrator denied the PBA’s compensatory time proposal, finding that “the record does not provide persuasive evidence that the proposed change is necessary or justified under the statutory criteria.” (Award at 29). The arbitrator similarly denied the PBA’s proposed increase in annual uniform allowance from $1,825 to $2,250. (Award at 29-30). ¶

On September 4, 2026, the PBA appealed the interest arbitration award. The PBA submitted a brief along with exhibits A through U, including the arbitration hearing transcripts, the parties’ pre-hearing correspondence with the arbitrator, the City’s post-hearing brief, and Dr. Caprio’s financial analysis. On September 22, after the deadline had passed, the City’s counsel confirmed to the Commission that it did not file opposition to the PBA’s appeal, but asserted the PBA must still demonstrate why the award should be overturned. ¶

The PBA asserts the following bases for appeal: ¶

• The arbitrator committed misconduct by denying subpoenas for some of the witnesses the PBA sought for hearing; ¶

• The arbitrator erred by not making any adverse inferences against the City for its failure to provide the requested unit member base salary cost and increment information prior to the arbitration hearing; ¶

• The arbitrator improperly requested the parties to leave interest arbitration for a voluntary process in order to have more time to develop the record on salary costs; ¶

• The arbitrator erred by making the PBA recalculate its cost- outs on the second day of hearing based on the City’s roster of unit members and not granting additional hearing time; ¶

• The arbitrator improperly considered the City’s final offer cost-out calculations submitted in its post-hearing brief without explicitly giving permission to submit new facts; ¶

• The arbitrator failed to provide a comprehensive cost analysis of the award, as his calculated average annual increases to base salary items do not match the percentages produced by the City’s cost-out of the award; ¶

• The arbitrator failed to adequately consider the 16g factors of private sector wages, cost of living, and continuity and stability of employment; and ¶

• The arbitrator erred in denying the PBA’s compensatory time proposal because he did not consider that the proposal was intended to ensure compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). ¶

For these reasons, the PBA requests that the interest arbitration award be vacated and remanded to a different arbitrator. ¶

Standard of Review ¶

The standard for reviewing an interest arbitration award is well established. We will not vacate an award unless the appellant demonstrates that: (1) the arbitrator failed to give “due weight” to the 16g statutory factors judged relevant to the resolution of the specific dispute; (2) the arbitrator violated the standards in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 and -9; or (3) the award is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. In re State, 443 N.J. Super. 380, 385 (App. Div. 2016), citing Borough of Hillsdale, 137 N.J. 71, 82 (1994); and Teaneck Tp. v. Teaneck FMBA, Local No. 42, 353 N.J. Super. 289, 306 (App. Div. 2002), aff’d o.b., 177 N.J. 560 (2003). Because the Legislature entrusted arbitrators with weighing the evidence, we will not disturb an arbitrator’s exercise of discretion unless an appellant demonstrates that the arbitrator did not adhere to these standards. Teaneck, 353 N.J. Super. at 308-309; Cherry Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 97-119, 23 NJPER 287 (¶28131 1997). “In brief, the arbitrator’s opinion should be a reasoned explanation for the decision.” Hillsdale, 137 N.J. at 82. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g requires that an interest arbitrator shall indicate in the award “which of the [16g] factors are deemed relevant, satisfactorily explain why the others are not relevant, and provide an analysis of the evidence on each relevant factor.” The 16g statutory factors are as follows: ¶

(1) The interests and welfare of the public. . . . ¶

(2) Comparison of the wages, salaries, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the arbitration proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing the same or similar services and with other employees generally: ¶

(a) In private employment in general . . . ¶

(b) In public employment in general . . . ¶

(c) In public employment in the same or similar comparable jurisdictions . . . ¶

(3) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, inclusive of direct wages, salary, vacations, holidays, excused leaves, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, and all other economic benefits received. ¶

(4) Stipulations of the parties. ¶

(5) The lawful authority of the employer. . . . ¶

(6) The financial impact on the governing unit, its residents, the limitations imposed upon the local unit’s property tax levy pursuant to section 10 of P.L.2007, c.62 (C.40A:4-45.45), and taxpayers. . . . ¶

(7) The cost of living. ¶

(8) The continuity and stability of employment including seniority rights and such other factors not confined to the foregoing which are ordinarily or traditionally considered in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment through collective negotiations and collective bargaining between the parties in the public service and in private employment. ¶

(9) Statutory restrictions imposed on the employer. . . . ¶

[N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g.] ¶

“In general, the relevance of a factor depends on the disputed issues and the evidence presented.” Hillsdale, 137 N.J. at 82. An arbitrator should state what statutory factors he or she considered most important, explain why they were given significant weight, and explain how other evidence or factors were weighed and considered in arriving at the final award. Id.; Bedminster Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2020-11, 46 NJPER 119 (¶27 2019), aff’d (App. Div. 2020); Lodi Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 99-28, 24 NJPER 466 (¶29214 1998); and N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9(b)1/ ¶

Arriving at an economic award is not a precise mathematical process. Given that the statute sets forth general criteria rather than a formula, the treatment of the parties’ proposals involves judgment and discretion and an arbitrator will rarely be able to demonstrate that an award is the only “correct” one. See Bedminster; Lodi. As some of the evidence may be conflicting, an arbitrator’s award is not necessarily flawed because some pieces of evidence, standing alone, might point to a different result. Bedminster; Lodi. Therefore, within the parameters of our review standard, we will defer to the arbitrator’s judgment, discretion, and labor relations expertise. Bedminster; City of Newark, P.E.R.C. No. 99-97, 25 NJPER 242 (¶30103 1999). ¶

Analysis ¶

Initially, we find that the arbitrator’s determination of which PBA subpoenas to grant or deny does not constitute reversible error. N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.7(a) provides: “The conduct of the arbitration proceeding shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the arbitrator.” N.J.A.C. 19:16- 5.7(e) provides, in pertinent part, that: “The arbitrator may . . . require the attendance of such witnesses . . . as the arbitrator may deem material to a just determination of the issues in dispute, and for such purpose may issue subpoenas and shall entertain any motions to quash such subpoenas.” Here, the arbitrator granted four of the PBA’s nine requested subpoenas and adequately explained his reasoning in his July 3, 2026 letter in response to the PBA’s proffer. (PBA Exhibit H). Specifically, he found that the requested witnesses who had “direct roles in contract negotiations,” “were instrumental in formulating and responding to contract proposals,” were “directly involved in the budget and costing out process,” or “would have direct information as to operational and staffing issues pertinent to these proceedings” would be subpoenaed. Id. Furthermore, the City’s BA who the PBA asserts should have been subpoenaed was called by the City to testify at the hearing and did testify. (PBA Exhibit C; 1T12-1T57). ¶

Next, we do not find that the arbitrator committed reversible error by deciding to proceed with the arbitration hearing before receiving all of the unit member base salary information he had requested from the City pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.7(g)(1). On July 10 and July 13, 2026, the arbitrator acknowledged that the City had failed to fully provide the requested scattergram of all unit members and their base salaries and salary guide steps as of the end of 2023. (PBA Exhibits M and Q; Award at 2). However, he exercised his discretion to utilize the PBA’s information and “the best available evidence” if the City did not submit it. Id. Ultimately, on July 16 prior to the second day of hearing, the arbitrator facilitated the parties’ production of a scattergram utilizing the headcount of 212 PBA unit members derived from the City’s payroll records. (Award at 4; 2T4-2T11; 2T64-68). Although not developed solely by the City or submitted prior to the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator determined that the scattergram developed prior to the second day of hearing “constitute[s] the best available evidence of the bargaining unit composition, salary distribution, and base salary for purposes of this proceeding.” (Award at 4). ¶

Relatedly, we do not find that the arbitrator abused his discretion by requiring the PBA to recalculate its cost-outs on the second day of hearing by utilizing the scattergram based on the City’s payroll records. The record indicates that the PBA was not prejudiced by this decision, as its expert witness Dr. Caprio was able to recalculate the cost-outs of the PBA and City final offers based on the 212 unit member scattergram. (2T64-68). The parties then relied on Dr. Caprio’s updated cost-outs, set forth in his July 16, 2026 Financial Analysis, during the hearing. (PBA Exhibit T; 2T64-91). ¶

Next, we do not find that the arbitrator improperly relied on new factual material submitted in the City’s post-hearing brief. The section of the award entitled “Summary of the City’s Position” summarizes the City’s post-hearing arguments, including the annual salary increases resulting from its cost-out of its final offer. (Award at 13). That cost-out was based on the total $18,841,075.30 base salary for 2023 that had already been presented during the arbitration hearing based on the City’s payroll records. (2T8; 2T68; City post-hearing brief at 3; Award at 4-5). The PBA’s counsel recognized during the hearing that there was only an “approximately $150 difference” between the number it calculated for 2023 base salary versus the number used by the City. (2T68). Moreover, the City’s cost-out of its final offer, 19.02% over four years, is nearly identical to the PBA’s calculated cost-out of 19.5% over four years as found in Dr. Caprio’s Financial Analysis and testified to by him. (City’s post-hearing brief at 3-4; Award at 13; PBA Exhibit T at 31, 34; 2T120-122). Finally, as all parties utilized the PBA’s cost-out of its final offer (32.3% over four years) for purposes of comparison with their cost-outs of the City’s final offer, the difference found was nearly identical (Award at 13, 27; PBA Exhibit T at 34; 2T120-122). Thus, there was no error caused by the arbitrator’s consideration of the City’s final offer cost-out in comparison to the PBA’s final offer cost-out. ¶

We next consider the PBA’s assertion that the arbitrator failed to provide a comprehensive cost analysis of the award. All interest arbitration awards must “determine whether the total net annual economic changes for each year of the agreement are reasonable under the nine statutory criteria.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16d. Even though the “2% hard cap” provision of N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 16.7 is expired for new contracts (N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.9), all awards must include a net cost-out of increases to base salary items for each year of the award. N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9(c)2/; see Mercer Cty. Prosc. Office, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-28, 47 NJPER 331 (¶79 2021); Passaic Cty. Sheriff, P.E.R.C. No. 2021-34, 47 NJPER 397 (¶94 2021); and City of Paterson, P.E.R.C. No. 2025-48, 52 NJPER 35 (¶8 2025). ¶

The arbitrator’s award initially expressed the annual increases in base salary items attributable to the combination of regular increments, longevity, and holiday pay without any additional ATB raises. (Award at 4, 21). As discussed above, the award also considered the annual salary increases attributable to those base salary items in addition to the top step raises proposed by the City and the ATB raises and salary guide changes proposed by the PBA. (Award at 13, 27). Finally, the arbitrator set forth the annual net economic changes of the base salary items including increments, longevity, and holiday pay combined with the awarded 2% ATB raise in 2024 and the 3% increases to the bottom two steps and 2% increases to the top step in 2025-2027: ¶

2024 - 6.63%; 2025 - 5.09%; 2026 - 4.48%; and 2027 - 5.26%. (Award at 29). The PBA disputes the arbitrator’s cost-out of his award, offering its own cost-out that was not significantly different. (PBA appeal brief at 35). However, the fact that the PBA conducted its own cost-out of the arbitrator’s award that yielded an average annual increase of approximately 4.79% instead of the 5.37% determined by the arbitrator does not demonstrate that the arbitrator failed to provide a comprehensive cost analysis of the award. (Award at 29; PBA appeal brief at 35). ¶

We next address the PBA’s assertion that the arbitrator misapplied some of the 16g statutory factors, specifically 16g(2)(a), 16g(7), and 16g(8). The arbitrator’s award included a section entitled “The Statutory Factors of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(g)” in which he explained the consideration given to each of the nine 16g statutory factors in light of the record developed by the parties. (Award at 15-25). Regarding the 16g(2) factor of “comparison of wages,” the arbitrator explained why he found public sector wages to be relevant and “accorded significant weight,” while according no weight to private sector wage comparisons. (Award at 19). The arbitrator reasonably determined that “there are no private-sector positions that can be realistically compared with police work in the City of Trenton.” (Award at 19). ¶

Regarding the 16g(7) factor of “cost of living,” the arbitrator acknowledged the inflationary increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the past several years, but noted that the levels in 2024 and 2025 had “moderated substantially from the unusually high levels experienced in 2021 through 2023.” (Award at 23). The arbitrator also adequately explained his reasoning for giving cost of living “limited weight,” stating: “Moreover, all employees, except those already at the maximum salary step, continue to receive annual increment increases, which provide compensation growth independent of any across-the- board salary adjustment.” (Award at 23). We also note that the arbitrator’s award did provide 2% salary increases to the top step of the salary guide, which means that officers at every level received at least some increase to help offset the impacts of continued inflation. (Award at 28-30). ¶

Regarding the 16g(8) factor of “continuity and stability of employment,” the arbitrator thoroughly explained the due consideration given to these issues. (Award at 24-25). The arbitrator cited to the record, including the testimony of the City’s Police Director, in finding the following: ¶

The record establishes that the Department continues to experience difficulty recruiting qualified candidates due primarily to its comparatively low-salary structure and, once officers are hired, continues to lose trained personnel to neighboring police departments offering substantially higher compensation. The evidence further establishes that the Department remains understaffed, resulting in mandatory overtime, missed days off, and increased job-related stress for existing officers. ¶

[Award at 24.] ¶

The arbitrator also discussed the City’s recruitment and retention problems in his consideration of the 16g(1) factor of “interests and welfare of the public.” (Award at 18). Ultimately, the arbitrator’s economic award of 3% increases to the bottom two steps of the salary guide and 2% increases to the top step in 2025-2027 demonstrate how seriously he took the stipulated recruitment and retention problems. (Award at 27-30). The arbitrator specifically sought to ameliorate the City’s police employment continuity challenges by awarding those targeted salary increases to improve recruitment and retention within the City’s financial limitations. Id. ¶

Finally, we reject the PBA’s contention that the arbitrator erred in denying the PBA’s compensatory time proposal because he did not consider that the proposal was intended to ensure compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The arbitrator considered the PBA’s compensatory time proposal and the City’s opposition to it. (Award at 13, 15). The arbitrator evaluated the compensatory time proposal, noted the existing CNA language on the issue, and determined: “The record does not provide persuasive evidence that the proposed change is necessary or justified under the statutory criteria.” (Award at 29). The arbitrator did not err by not crafting language aimed towards ensuring the City’s compliance with the FLSA; any statutory obligations are automatically a part of the CNA and the PBA may seek to enforce alleged FLSA violations through contractual grievance procedures or any other legal remedies. See, e.g., West Windsor Tp., 78 N.J. 98, 107 (1978) ( “statutes and regulations are effectively incorporated by reference as terms of any collective agreement covering employees to which they apply,” so disputes concerning the application or claimed violation of such statutes or regulations may be subject to the parties’ contractual grievance procedure including binding arbitration); Old Bridge Bd. of Ed., 98 N.J. 523, 527-528 (1985); and Rutgers University, P.E.R.C. No. 2018-32, 44 NJPER 312 (¶88 2018) (union could arbitrate alleged FLSA classification violation). ¶

Based on the foregoing, we find that the arbitrator’s award is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole and did not violate the standards in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 and - 9 (e.g., it was not procured by “undue means” or was “so imperfectly executed” as asserted by the PBA). We also find that the arbitrator gave due weight to the 16g statutory factors and adequately explained the relative weight given in light of the record evidence. Bedminster. The arbitrator gave a reasoned explanation for his economic award, balancing significant issues such as the City’s serious financial problems against the City’s need to recruit and retain more police officers. Hillsdale, 137 N.J. at 82. Finding that the PBA has not established that the arbitrator failed to adhere to the requisite interest arbitration standards, we find no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s exercise of discretion. Teaneck, 353 N.J. Super. at 306-309. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The interest arbitration award is affirmed. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey and Eaton voted in favor of this decision. Commissioners Higgins and Hines voted against this decision. Commissioner Papero recused himself. ¶

ISSUED: October 22, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9(b) provides: “Each arbitrator’s decision shall be accompanied by a written report explaining how each of the statutory criteria played into the arbitrator’s determination of the final award. The opinion and award shall be signed and based on a reasonable determination of the issues, giving due weight to those factors listed in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16g.” ¶

2/ N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.9(c) provides, in pertinent part: “In all awards, whether or not subject to the two percent cap, the arbitrator's decision shall set forth the costs of all “base salary” items for each year of the award, including the salary provided pursuant to a salary guide or table, any amount provided pursuant to a salary increment, any amount provided for longevity or length of service, and any other item agreed to by the parties or that was included as a base salary item in the prior award or as understood by the parties in the prior contract. These cost-out figures for the awarded base salary items are necessary in order for the arbitrator to determine, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.d, whether the total net annual economic changes for each year of the award are reasonable under the statutory criteria.” ¶