P.E.R.C. No. 2027-2, Little Egg Harbor B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CE-2026-005 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP SUPPORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants in part and denies in part the appeal of the Little Egg Harbor Township Board of Education from a decision of the Director of Unfair Practices dismissing its unfair practice charge alleging the Little Egg Harbor Support Staff Association refused pre- implementation attempts to negotiate a wage increase for part- time paraprofessionals and disavowed representation of those employees. The Commission finds the conduct alleged, if true, could violate section 5.4b(3) of the Act. Regarding the Board’s 5.4b(1) claim, the Commission finds the Director erred in dismissing it on standing grounds, concluding that the Commission’s rules and precedent do not categorically bar employer-filed b(1) claims and that a factual record must be developed to determine whether the Association’s alleged conduct tended to interfere with employee rights in violation of 5.4b(1). The Commission sustains the Director’s dismissal of the Board’s section 5.4b(5) claim as duplicative of its 5.4b(3) charge and remands the 5.4b(1) and (3) claims to the Director for issuance of a complaint and further processing. ¶

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 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CE-2026-005 LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP SUPPORT STAFF ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Comegno Law Group, P.C., attorneys (Jeffrey R. Caccese, of counsel; Giulia L. Lima, on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Selikoff & Cohen, P.A., attorneys (Keith Waldman, of counsel and on the brief; Liz Pudel, on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 9, 2026, Little Egg Harbor Township Board of Education (Board) filed an appeal from the January 28 decision of the Director of Unfair Practices refusing to issue a complaint on the Board’s unfair practice charge (UPC) against the Little Egg Harbor Support Staff Association (Association). ¶

As filed on January 20 and amended on January 27, 2026, the UPC alleges the Association violated sections 5.4b(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.,1/ when, at a December 2, 2025 meeting, it refused to acknowledge a past practice regarding part-time paraprofessionals and demanded the same benefits for them as full-time paraprofessionals receive contractually; demanded increased benefits for paraprofessionals during the term of the existing CNA; demanded that the salary increase for part-time paraprofessionals be rescinded; refused to open the CNA and discuss a wage increase the Board implemented in August 2025 for part-time paraprofessionals; and told the Board they were not going to negotiate. ¶

The Board filed its amended UPC together with a letter brief in response to the Director’s January 20, 2026, defect letter stating he was inclined to dismiss its 5.4b(1), (3), and (5) claims unless the Board cured certain pleading deficiencies. In pertinent part, the Director saw no allegation that the Association “interfered with, restrained or coerced any employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under the Act” in violation of section 5.4b(1), and found that the Association’s filing of an unfair practice charge (CO-2026-047) as referenced in the Board’s UPC was not “in and of itself an unfair practice” in violation of section 5.4b(3) even if the Association’s charge “turns out to be meritless.” The Director further noted that a position apparently taken by the Association (that part-time paraprofessionals “should be deemed part of the unit under the WDEA2/ unit work rule” and thus covered by the current CNA) was “more akin to ‘hard bargaining’” than to “bad faith.” He dismissed the 5.4b(5) allegations because the amended UPC cited no Commission rule or regulation allegedly violated by the Association. ¶

The Director dismissed the UPC in its entirety on January 28, 2026, after receiving the Board’s amended charge. He dismissed the 5.4b(1) and 5.4b(3) allegations based upon the reasons stated in his defect letter and because the Board provided no “additional material factual information and/or legal authority” to support those claims. The Director also found the Board lacked standing to assert claims under 5.4b(1). He further found that the Association’s alleged conduct of taking a position in negotiations, which the Director again likened to “hard bargaining,” and meeting with the Board “only to convey information/communicate negotiations positions,” did “not amount to a viable refusal to negotiate in good faith” under 5.4b(3). Lastly, the Director dismissed the Board’s 5.4b(2) claim because there was “no allegation” that the Association “interfered with, restrained or coerced the Board with respect to the selection of its representatives for purposes of negotiations or the adjustment of grievances.” ¶

In support of its appeal the Board filed a brief and exhibits. In opposition, the Association filed a brief, exhibits, and the certification of legal counsel. We have reviewed the entire record, and we summarize the pertinent facts as follows. ¶

The Association is the exclusive majority representative of certain groups of support staff members employed by the Board. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA with effective dates from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2027. The recognition clause specifies that the Association represents three groups that are employed on a “full time only” basis, and three that are employed “full and part time.” The “full time only” groups include paraprofessional, maintenance, and custodial staff. The “full and part time” groups include only cafeteria, clerical, and secretarial staff. Part-time paraprofessionals are not mentioned in the recognition clause.3/ ¶

The Board asserts that it made multiple pre-implementation attempts to negotiate4/ with the Association over the need for a part-time paraprofessional wage increase. It asserts the Association refused to negotiate and effectively asserted that part-time paraprofessionals were not part of the unit. The Board asserts that this effective disclaimer of representation supports its 5.4b(1) claim as the part-time paraprofessionals have the right to have their interests represented by the majority representative without discrimination. ¶

The Association filed an unfair practice charge after the Board, in August 2025, implemented the wage increase for part- time paraprofessionals.5/ In its charge the Association asserts that the Board violated sections 5.4a(1) and (5)6/ of the Act when it unilaterally implemented changes to full- and part-time paraprofessionals’ terms and conditions of employment affecting their pay, health benefits, sick time, and holiday pay. ¶

The Board claims that the Association filed its charge despite the Board’s multiple attempts, including attempted negotiations, to discuss the need and the impact of the part-time paraprofessional wage increase. The Board states it attempted such negotiations during a December 2, 2025, meeting at which the Association refused to open the CNA and discuss the wage increase. The meeting, which took place at a District office, resulted from a November 14 exploratory conference conducted by a PERC staff member processing the Association’s charge.7/ ¶

The Board contends that instead of engaging in good faith negotiations during the December 2, 2025 meeting the Association engaged in surface bargaining when it posited that part-time paraprofessionals should be receiving the same benefits as full- timers under the current CNA. The Board asserts the CNA contains no reference for part-timers, and that there is a past practice related to their terms and conditions of employment. The Board claims that despite being reminded of the District’s financial straits, the Association pressed its offer to give part-time paraprofessionals the same terms and conditions of employment as full-time paraprofessionals, knowing the Board could not agree to it. The Board alleges the Association stated it would proceed with its UPC if the Board would not acquiesce.8/ ¶

As to the December 2 meeting, the Association’s counsel certifies as follows. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential settlement of the Association’s UPC. It was not a “conventional negotiation” existing outside of the context of that charge. The Board opened the discussion by stating that it wanted to make an offer but not before hearing what the Association was looking for. The Association then offered its position, which it characterized as the restoration of full-time paraprofessional positions with benefits. The Board made no counter or stated any settlement position of its own. The Board reiterated its financial straits, demanded that the Association “negotiate against itself,” and warned that a “refusal to accede to the Board’s demands would result in greater harm to unit members.” The meeting ended with the Board representatives “storming out of the room.” ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

As further discussed infra, we remand to the Director for complaint issuance and further processing on the Board’s 5.4b(1) and (3) charges. We find the Board’s allegations that the Association refused the Board’s pre-implementation attempts to negotiate the wage increase and/or disavowed representation of part-time paraprofessionals in connection with such attempts support the issuance of a complaint on the Board’s 5.4b(3) charge. We further find the Board’s 5.4b(1) charge was dismissed prematurely. ¶

N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a) sets forth the Commission’s unfair practice complaint issuance standard, in pertinent part: ¶

[I]f 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. ¶

[N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a) (emphases added).] ¶

The parties’ current CNA was negotiated after the enactment of the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act (WDEA), P.L. 2018, c.15, which provides for the inclusion of employees performing negotiations unit work who were not previously included in a unit “because they did not meet the threshold of hours or percent of time worked as set forth” in a CNA. The Board alleges in its charge that, notwithstanding the WDEA, the Association effectively disclaimed representation of the part-time paraprofessionals while refusing to negotiate concerning their wages. Accepting those allegations as true, we conclude they are sufficient to meet our complaint issuance standard. ¶

The Board’s 5.4b(3) charge alleges that the Association refused to negotiate in good faith over the wage increase. Applying the complaint-issuance standard here, we accept as true the Board’s factual allegations that there is a “past practice related to” part-time paraprofessionals’ terms and conditions of employment, and that in August 2025 the Board made a mid-contract change to those terms when it increased their wages. ¶

If a CNA is silent or unclear concerning a particular term, the parties’ past practice regarding that subject may control. Hamilton Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2026-2, 52 NJPER 75 (¶18 2025) (citing, Ridgefield Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-45, 49 NJPER 4 (¶2 2022); Sussex Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 83-4, 8 NJPER 431 (¶13200 1982)). Thus, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 “prohibits an employer from unilaterally altering the status quo concerning mandatory bargaining topics, whether established by expired contract or by past practice, without first bargaining to impasse.” Bd. of Educ. v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 144 N.J. 16, 22 (1995): see also, County of Atlantic, 230 N.J. 237, 252 (2017); Sayreville Bor., P.E.R.C. No. 83-105, 9 NJPER 138, 140 (¶14066 1983) (employer may not unilaterally alter “an existing practice or rule governing a term and condition of employment, such as . . . the amount of an employee’s salary, even though that practice or rule is not specifically set forth in a contract” ) (citing, Galloway Twp. Bd. of Ed. v. Galloway Twp. Ed. Ass’n, 78 N.J. 25, 48-49, n.9 (1978); N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4)). ¶

The Board’s 5.4(b)3 claim may proceed concerning the Association’s alleged refusal to negotiate over the wage increase prior to its implementation, and its purported disclaimer of part-time paraprofessionals’ representation. The parties are left to their proofs regarding the disputed facts as to when representation of the part-time paraprofessionals began, any negotiations history regarding their salaries, and their negotiations obligation, if any, regarding the wage increase. ¶

We next consider the Board’s allegation that the Association violated 5.4b(1) by refusing to negotiate over the wages of part- time paraprofessionals and, in doing so, effectively disavowing its representational responsibilities toward those employees. The Director concluded that the Board lacked standing to pursue that claim. ¶

The Commission’s rules state that “any unfair practice listed in subsections (a) and (b)” of the Act “may be filed by any public employer, public employee, public employee organization, or their representatives.” N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.1. Commission precedent reflects differing approaches to employer- filed 5.4b(1) claims, but it does not establish a categorical bar to such claims.9/ Rather, the inquiry ultimately turns on whether the alleged conduct, if proven, had a tendency to interfere with employees’ statutory rights. ¶

At this stage, we do not determine whether the Board will ultimately establish that the Association’s alleged conduct constituted a disclaimer of representation or otherwise interfered with employee rights. Nor do we determine whether any employee suffered cognizable harm as a result of the Association’s alleged conduct. Those questions depend upon the development of a factual record. Accepting the allegations of the charge as true, we are satisfied that the Board has alleged sufficient facts to warrant further proceedings under the complaint issuance standard. Whether the Board can ultimately prove that the Association’s conduct had a tendency to interfere with employees’ protected rights, and whether any resulting injury is legally cognizable, are questions that should be resolved on a developed evidentiary record rather than the pleadings. ¶

Finally, we sustain the Director’s dismissal of the Board’s 5.4b(5) claim. In its appeal brief the Board argues the 5.4b(5) charge should not have been dismissed because the Association’s conduct allegedly violated the statutory requirement of N.J.S.A.34:13A-5.3 that parties “meet at reasonable times and negotiate in good faith” over employees’ terms and conditions of employment. This argument is duplicative of the Board’s 5.4b(3) claim.10/ ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Board’s 5.4b(5) claim is dismissed. The Board’s 5.4b(1) and (3) claims are remanded to the Director of Unfair Practices for issuance of a complaint and further processing as the Director deems appropriate. ¶

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/ These provisions prohibit employee organizations, their representatives or agents from: “(1)Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act; (2)Interfering with, restraining or coercing a public employer in the selection of his representative for the purposes of negotiations or the adjustment of grievances; (3) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a public employer, if they are the majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit; and (5) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission.” ¶

2/ Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act, P.L. 2018, c.15, as codified at N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.11 - 5.15. ¶

3/ The recognition clause of the current CNA is unchanged from the agreement it succeeded, which had effective dates from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.2, copies of each CNA may be found on PERC’s website: https://www.nj.gov/perc/conciliation/contracts/ ¶

4/ We note the Board’s charge does not allege specific date(s) of its pre-implementation attempts to negotiate. ¶

5/ The Association’s charge is docketed as CO-2026-047, and was initially filed on September 15, 2025, and amended on November 5 and December 3. The periods of time covered by the allegations in the Association’s charge range from August 18, 2025, to September 2, 2025 (initial charge), and from October 16 to 17, 2025 (1st and 2nd amended). On December 8, 2025, the Director issued a complaint and notice of pre-hearing on the Association’s charge. Processing of that complaint is currently on hold pending the outcome of an interim relief proceeding in connection with related charges the Association filed on April 16, 2026, docketed as CO-2026-189. ¶

6/ 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” ; and “(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.” ¶

7/ Once a charge is filed with the Commission, it is normally assigned for processing to a PERC staff member, who may hold an exploratory conference with the parties to, among other things, “explore the possibility of settlement.” N.J.A.C. 19:14-1.6(c). ¶

8/ The Board claims the Association should have utilized the grievance process before filing a UPC. The Board further argues that the Association’s alleged refusal to negotiate put the parties at a mid-contract impasse which, the Board contends, entitled it to unilaterally implement the wage increase. These arguments are defenses to the Association’s UPC and are not relevant to our complaint issuance determination. ¶

9/ See, e.g., Mercer Cty. Community College, (dismissing employer’s b(1) charge on merits and stating, “the public policy of the Act would be undermined if public employee organizations as well as public employers and public employees were not free to file charges of unfair practices when events appeared to them to so warrant. . . . [T]he Commission’s regulations provide[. . .] that a charge may be filed by any public employee organization, public employer or public employee or their representative without limitation. The merits of the charge are, of course, something to be later determined” ), adopted, P.E.R.C. No. 86-30, 11 NJPER 585 (¶16204 1985); Merchantville Bd. of Ed., D.U.P. No. 92-18, 18 NJPER 280 (¶23119 1992) (dismissing employer’s (b)(1) charge not on standing grounds, but because employer failed to show how the affected employee’s rights as a public employee were violated as opposed to infringing on their managerial duties as a representative of an employer); Rutgers, the State University, P.E.R.C. No. 95-32, 20 NJPER 431 (¶25221 1994) (although hearing examiner found, without explanation, that (b)(1) was derivatively violated by union’s (b)(3) violation of trying to insert contract terms before member ratification, Commission dismissed whole complaint because there was no meeting of the minds for a (b)(3) violation and did not address the (b)(1) claim); Ramapo-Indian Hills Ed. Ass’n v. Ramapo- Indian Hills H.S. Dist. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 91-38, 16 NJPER 581 (¶21255 1990) (although hearing examiner analogized (b)(1) to (a)(1) and found it derivatively violated, Commission stated that the allegation was withdrawn but nevertheless noted in a footnote that there was no tendency to interfere with employee rights, which it emphasized was a requirement to such a violation, whether derivative or independent); Hackensack Bd. of Ed., D.U.P. No. 2020-11, 46 NJPER 506 (¶112 2020) (employer’s charge did not present claim under 5.4b(1) where facts alleged did not “implicate the rights of unit employees vis a vis their majority representative” ). See also, Watchung Hills Reg. H.S. Dist. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2024-12, 50 NJPER 226 (¶50 2023) (on stipulated record, summarily deciding complaint issued on consolidated opposing charges, dismissing all employer’s charges against union including b(1) charge), aff’d in part and rev’d in part (on other grounds) (App. Div. 2024). Cf., Totowa Ed. Ass’n, D.U.P. No. 2012-10, 38 NJPER 272 (¶93 2012) (in footnote without citation or further explanation, dismissing employer’s b(1) charge for lack of standing). ¶

10/ The Board did not appeal the Director’s dismissal of its 5.4b(2) claim. ¶