P.E.R.C. No. 2027-3, Trenton

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PBA LOCAL 11A, SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CO-2026-117 CITY OF TRENTON, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies the SOA’s motion for reconsideration of the Director’s denial of its application for interim relief. The SOA’s unfair practice charge (UPC) asserts that the City violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (5) by delaying the timing of regular biweekly paychecks at the end of the calendar year to avoid a 27th pay period in a calendar year. Finding that the SOA has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration, the Commission affirms the Director’s denial of interim relief. However, the Commission departs from the Director’s finding that the underlying UPC is either untimely or unripe. Finding that the SOA’s allegations, if true, may constitute violations of the Act, the Commission remands the UPC to the Director for issuance of a Complaint. ¶

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 PBA LOCAL 11A, SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Charging Party, -and- Docket No. CO-2026-117 CITY OF TRENTON, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Charging Party, Alterman & Associates, LLC ¶

(Stuart J. Alterman, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, City of Trenton Law Department ¶

(A. Wesley Bridges, City Attorney) ¶

DECISION ¶

On February 13, 2026, PBA Local 11A, Superior Officers Association (SOA) moved for reconsideration of a January 30 letter from the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) denying its request for interim relief in its unfair practice charge (UPC) against the City of Trenton (City). The SOA’s motion included additional exhibits and additional certifications of SOA President Jason P. Woodhead. The City did not file a response. ¶

The SOA’s December 30, 2025 UPC alleges that the City violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (5) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act) by unilaterally changing the timing of the final paycheck for 2025 to the first business day after the New Year’s Day holiday rather than on the business day prior to the holiday or on the usual Thursday pay date. The SOA’s UPC also contests the 2026 payroll calendar which does not list a date for the final paycheck. Along with its UPC, the SOA filed an application for interim relief supported by a brief, exhibits, and the certification of SOA President Jason P. Woodhead. ¶

The SOA represents superior officers employed by the City. The City and SOA are parties to a CNA that expired on December 31, 2023 and are currently in collective negotiations for a successor agreement. (Woodhead Cert. ~3).1/ SOA unit employees have bi-weekly pay periods with regular Thursday paydays. (Woodhead Cert. ~4). Woodhead contends that when a regular Thursday payday falls on a holiday or bank/municipal closure, the City has historically paid SOA employees on the preceding business day, such as Wednesday, July 3, 2024 (before Independence Day) and Wednesday, June 18, 2025 (before Juneteenth). (Woodhead Cert. ~5; SOA UPC Exhibits D and E). ¶

Woodhead certifies that on January 13, 2025, the Police Director issued Memorandum Order 2025-002 distributing a 2025 regular pay period schedule which listed 26 pay periods with a final pay period ending December 13, 2025 and a final listed pay date of December 18, 2025. It did not list any payday on December 31, 2025 for the pay period Sunday, December 14, 2025 through Saturday, December 27, 2025. (SOA UPC Exhibit A). Woodhead asserts that since the final pay period in 2025 was from December 14 through December 27, the regular Thursday payday would have fallen on a holiday - Thursday, January 1, 2026 - and should have been paid on Wednesday, December 31, 2025. (Woodhead Cert. ~11). ¶

Woodhead further certifies that on January 8, 2025, the SOA attended a meeting with City representatives regarding the absence of the final payday on the 2025 payroll schedule. (Woodhead MFR Cert. ~4).2/ Woodhead stated that the payday should be Wednesday, December 31, 2025, consistent with the City’s established practice for when a regular Thursday payday falls on a holiday. Id. Woodhead certifies that City representatives assured the SOA that “employees would be paid on time around the year-end holiday” but did not provide an authoritative written directive or corrected schedule at that time. Id. Woodhead asserts that on November 6, 2025, the SOA again raised the issue regarding the missing final payday in the 2025 calendar. (Woodhead MFR Cert. ~5). ¶

On December 1, 2025, the City issued a memorandum entitled “Temporary Adjustment to Pay Date - January 2026” advising employees that their regular Thursday payday schedule would be adjusted at the end of 2025 so that the December 14-27 pay period would be paid on January 2, 2026. (SOA UPC Exhibit B). The memorandum stated, in pertinent part: ¶

This memorandum serves to notify all employees of a temporary adjustment to the City’s regular pay day Thursday schedule. In observance of the holiday, New Year’s Day, January 1, 2026, and to ensure proper payroll processing through financial institutions, the pay date will be Friday, January 2, 2026. Please note that other than changing our pay cycle to a semi-monthly schedule this adjustment allows the City to remain consistent with the established bi-weekly pay period schedule, ensuring that employees continue to receive 26 pay periods during the calendar year, rather than 27. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation as we make this necessary modification to accommodate the holiday and our bi-weekly pay period schedule. ¶

[City’s December 1, 2025 Pay Date Memorandum.] ¶

On December 10, 2025, the City issued Memorandum No. 2025- 064, entitled “Pay Periods 2026,” attaching a copy of the City’s 2026 pay period schedule. (SOA UPC Exhibit H). That schedule set forth January 2, 2026 as the pay date for the December 14 through December 27, 2025 pay period. Ibid. The 2026 pay period schedule did not include the final pay period for 2026 (December 13 through December 26, 2026) or the regular Thursday, December 31, 2026, pay date for that pay period (which does not fall on a holiday). (SOA UPC Exhibits H and I). Woodhead certifies that the SOA objected and demanded that the City maintain the status quo of paying holiday-adjusted biweekly paychecks on the day before the holiday payday rather than delaying them to the next year to avoid a 27th payday within a calendar year. (Woodhead Cert. ~~11-13). ¶

On January 30, 2026, the Director issued a letter denying the SOA’s application for interim relief. The Director found that the SOA’s UPC was untimely because it should have known based on the City’s January 13, 2025 payroll calendar, which did not include a pay date for the final pay period of 2025, that the City was going to delay that paycheck until 2026. The Director also found the PBA waived its right to object to or negotiate over the pay date change by waiting until December 30, 2025 - just before its implementation - to file its UPC. The Director did not find a substantial likelihood of success because he found it is not clear what the parties’ past practice was regarding a 27th pay date in a given calendar year. The Director found that a paycheck delay of several days does not constitute irreparable harm. Finally, the Director found that the scheduled end of 2026 pay date change is not ripe for interim relief because the parties still have time to negotiate over it. ¶

The SOA asserts reconsideration is warranted based on extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance, citing what it characterizes as material errors in the Director’s letter. The SOA asserts there is no “26 pay day” agreement or law that prevents the City from issuing a 27th paycheck in a calendar year when the regular pay date warrants it. The SOA notes that a biweekly payroll system necessarily results in periodic 27 pay date years and is not a “windfall” because it is always the payment of earned wages for a defined 2-week pay period. The SOA contends that its charge is not untimely because the City’s only written order officially establishing the delayed pay date did not occur until December 1, 2025. The SOA asserts that it also objected to and sought clarification regarding the pay date omission, and that there is no contractual waiver or agreement through which it has accepted a later pay date. ¶

Motions for reconsideration of interim relief decisions are governed by N.J.A.C. 19:14-9.6, which states, in pertinent part: ¶

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. ¶

Only in cases of exceptional importance will we intrude into the regular interim relief process by granting a motion for reconsideration by the full Commission. City of Passaic, P.E.R.C. No. 2004-50, 30 NJPER 67 (~21 2004); Borough of Closter, P.E.R.C. No. 2001-75, 27 NJPER 289 (~32104 2001). ¶

We affirm the Director’s denial of interim relief because we find that the legal standards for granting a motion for reconsideration have not been met. Specifically, the SOA has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance warranting reconsideration. However, our denial of reconsideration does not end the inquiry. ¶

The complaint issuance standard provides that a complaint shall issue if it appears that the allegations of the charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a). We find that the allegations in the UPC, together with the additional evidence and argument submitted on reconsideration, satisfy the complaint issuance standard. We remand this case to the Director to issue a complaint to be processed in the normal course. ¶

The SOA’s UPC contests the timing of the final paychecks for 2025 and 2026. The Commission has consistently held that the timing of paychecks is mandatorily negotiable. See, e.g., West Orange Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2018-26, 44 NJPER 291 (¶81 2018) (pay period change from weekly to bi-weekly); Brick Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2003-25, 28 NJPER 436 (¶33160 2002) (July payday delayed two days for some employees; number of September paydays reduced for others); Borough of Fairview, P.E.R.C. No. 97-152, 23 NJPER 398 (¶28183 1997) (pay period changed from weekly to bi- weekly); and Township of Fairfield, P.E.R.C. No. 97-60, 23 NJPER 13 (¶28013 1996) (pay period changed from weekly to bi-weekly). Thus, the SOA’s claim that the City unilaterally changed the timing of paychecks at the end of the year, if true, may constitute a violation of the Act. Before the Director, the City asserted that the timing of paydays is not always mandatorily negotiable and that “administrative payroll determinations” do not require negotiations. The City may advance these claims as the case progresses.3/ ¶

The Director found that the SOA’s UPC was untimely. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) provides that no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the charge unless the charging party was prevented from filing a timely charge. In deciding whether a charging party was prevented from filing a timely charge, the Commission must consider all relevant considerations bearing upon the fairness of imposing the statute of limitations in each individual case. Kaczmarek v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 77 N.J. 329, 340 (1978). Relevant considerations could include whether a charging party sought timely relief in another forum; whether the respondent fraudulently concealed and misrepresented the facts establishing an unfair practice; when a charging party knew or should have known the basis for its claim; and how long a time has passed between the contested action and the charge. See, e.g. State of N.J. (Dept. of Human Services) and CWA, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-56, 29 NJPER 93 (¶26 2003); East Windsor Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2026-36, 52 NJPER 318 (¶85 2026). ¶

We find that the present record does not establish a timeliness bar to complaint issuance. The City provided a 2025 payroll calendar on January 13, 2025 that did not include the final payday of Wednesday, December 31. (Woodhead Cert. ~6; SOA UPC Exhibit A). The SOA certifies that during a January 8 meeting, the City assured the SOA that employees would be paid on time around the year-end holiday, but never confirmed whether or not that would be on December 31 as expected by the SOA. (Woodhead MFR Cert. ~4). The SOA further contends that on November 6, it again raised its concerns regarding the final 2025 payday. (Woodhead MFR Cert. ~5). Woodhead asserts that the City did not issue a definitive written directive establishing a delayed final 2025 payday until its December 1 memorandum. (Woodhead MFR Cert. ~6; Woodhead Cert. ~7; SOA UPC Exhibit B). Woodhead’s MFR certification provides additional facts regarding exchanges between the parties which, if true, could call into question when the SOA knew or should have known that the final payday would not take place as the SOA expected. A timeliness determination requires a more fully developed record, and the parties may advance their timeliness claims as the case progresses. ¶

We further conclude that, at this complaint issuance stage, the SOA’s claim concerning the City’s unilateral change to the 2026 final payday is not subject to dismissal on ripeness grounds because the 2026 payroll schedule does not identify a regularly scheduled final payday. The factual record for 2025 demonstrates that the City’s exclusion of a final payday from that year’s payroll calendar was a precursor to the delay of the final payday, causing the employees to get paid on January 2, 2026, three days after their expected payday. Thus, the City’s 2026 payroll schedule, which excludes a final regular pay date, could constitute the announcement of a potential unilateral change in violation of the Act, meeting the complaint issuance standard. Bloomfield Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2024-51, 50 NJPER 434 (¶106 2024)(the announcement and the implementation of a unilateral change to mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment could be separate unfair practices). ¶

In conclusion, although we deny the SOA’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of interim relief because the legal standards of extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance have not been met, we find that the SOA’s UPC allegations, if true, may constitute violations of the Act. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1(a). We therefore remand the UPC to the Director for issuance of a complaint. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The SOA’s motion for reconsideration of the Director’s January 30, 2026 letter denying its application for interim relief is denied. The underlying unfair practice charge is remanded to the Director of Unfair Practices for issuance of a complaint. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: August 27, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ References to “Woodhead Cert.” are to the December 29, 2025 certification submitted by the SOA to the Director along with its UPC and interim relief application. ¶

2/ References to “Woodhead MFR Cert.” are to the February 13, 2026 certification submitted by the SOA to the Commission along with its motion for reconsideration. ¶

3/ In a previous case involving these parties, the Director found the issue of how to handle a 27th biweekly payday in a calendar year was mandatorily negotiable, and the parties had negotiated an agreement on the issue when it arose in 2015. See D.U.P. No. 2020-7, 46 NJPER 219 (¶50 2019). ¶