P.E.R.C. No. 2027-4, Roselle B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of ROSELLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-092 ROSELLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

On exceptions filed by the Board, the Public Employment Relations Commission reverses a Hearing Examiner’s decision that granted the Association’s motion for summary judgment on its unfair practice charge (UPC) against the Board. The UPC alleged that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(1) and (5) by not negotiating with the Association when it abolished an employee’s 12-month supervisory position and rehired her to a 10-month teaching position with a lower salary. The Commission finds that the Board had no obligation to re-negotiate the employee’s salary because her position in the supervisory unit was abolished and she was reappointed to a different, non-supervisory position in the Association’s unit. The Commission finds that it is undisputed that the employee was appropriately placed at the previously negotiated salary for her new position according to the collective negotiations agreement. The Commission grants the Board’s motion for summary judgment, denies the Association’s motion for summary judgment, and dismisses the UPC. ¶

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 ROSELLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2024-092 ROSELLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Shabazz & Woolridge Law Group, LLP (Bryant Lawrence Horsley, Jr., of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, Oxfeld Cohen, P.C. (Randi Doner April, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

This case comes before the Commission by way of exceptions filed by the Roselle Board of Education (Board) to a Hearing Examiner’s decision, H.E. No. 2026-5, 52 NJPER 271 (¶73 2026). On December 19, 2023, the Roselle Education Association (Association) filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against the Board alleging that it violated subsections 5.4a(1) and (5)1/ of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., when it abolished an employee’s 12-month supervisory position through a reduction in force (RIF) and rehired her to a 10-month teaching position with a lower salary and did not negotiate with the Association over her reduction in compensation. On October 2, 2024, the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) issued a Complaint and Notice of Pre-Hearing on the Association’s allegations. On November 4, the Board filed an Answer denying the allegations and asserting that the parties have no contractual agreement or past practice of “redlining” the salary of a former supervisor whose position has been abolished through an RIF so that they can maintain the higher salary of their previous position rather than the lower negotiated salary of their Association teaching position. ¶

On September 19, 2025, the Association filed a motion for summary judgment along with a brief, exhibits, and the certification of its counsel. On September 19, the Board filed a cross-motion for summary judgment along with a brief, exhibits, and the certification of its Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, Bernice Marshall-Simmons. Also on September 19, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts. On October 6, the Association filed a response brief opposing the Board’s cross- motion for summary judgment. On October 7, the Board filed a response brief opposing the Association’s motion for summary judgment. On October 15, the Commission referred the motion and cross-motion for summary judgment to a Hearing Examiner for a decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:14-4.8(a). ¶

On March 13, 2026, the Hearing Examiner issued a Report and Recommended Decision, H.E. No. 2026-5, granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment and denying the Board’s cross-motion. The Hearing Examiner found that, while the Board “has a statutory right and managerial prerogative to abolish positions and reduce its staff for organizational and budgetary reasons pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9,” it still had an obligation to negotiate with the Association over the employee’s reduction in compensation caused by the change to a lower salary teaching position. H.E. at 11-16. The Hearing Examiner found that “the Board’s unilateral change of [A.R.]’s salary without negotiations violates sections 5.4a(1) and (5) of the Act,” ordered restoration of the teacher’s salary to that of her abolished supervisory position, and ordered the Board to negotiate in good faith with the Association over any proposed changes to the teacher’s salary. H.E. at 17-18. ¶

On March 26, 2026, the Board filed exceptions with the Commission to the Hearing Examiner’s decisions. N.J.A.C. 19:14- 7.3. On March 31, the Association filed a brief in opposition to the Board’s exceptions.2/ ¶

Standard of Review ¶

This matter is now before the Commission to adopt, reject, or modify the Hearing Examiner’s recommendations. See N.J.A.C. 19:14-8.1(a). The standard we apply in reviewing a Hearing Examiner’s decision and recommended order is set forth in part in N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c). In the context of a motion for summary judgment, the relevant part of the statute provides: ¶

The head of the agency, upon a review of the record submitted by the [hearing examiner], shall adopt, reject or modify the recommended report and decision . . . after receipt of such recommendations. In reviewing the decision . . ., the agency head may reject or modify findings of fact, conclusions of law or interpretations of agency policy in the decision, but shall state clearly the reasons for doing so. . . . In rejecting or modifying any findings of fact, the agency head shall state with particularity the reasons for rejecting the findings and shall make new or modified findings supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record. ¶

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). ¶

Summary of Facts ¶

We have reviewed the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact and find that they are supported by the record. H.E. at 3-7. We summarize the pertinent facts as follows. The Board and Association are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA) with a term of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. The Association is the exclusive majority representative of a broad- based unit of Board employees, excluding supervisors. The Board’s supervisory employees are represented by the Roselle Administrative Association (RAA). ¶

A.R. has been employed by the Board for 34 years as both a teacher and administrator. From approximately 2012-2023, A.R. was the Supervisor of Special Services, a 12-month position represented by the supervisory unit RAA. For the 2022-2023 school year as a 12-month supervisor in the RAA unit, A.R.’s annual salary was $121,317. On April 24, 2023, the Board approved the abolishment of the Supervisor of Special Services position as a part of a RIF, effective July 1. The Board transferred most of the duties of the abolished Supervisor of Special Services to the Director of Special Services, and transferred some of the position’s supervisory duties, such as observation and evaluation of teachers, to the Principals. The Association has not challenged the RIF. ¶

On June 26, 2023, the Board approved of A.R.’s reappointment to her tenured Coordinator of Special Services position, which she assumed on July 1. The non-supervisory Coordinator of Special Services is a 10-month position represented by the Association. For the 2023-2024 school year as a 10-month non- supervisory coordinator in the Association’s unit, A.R.’s annual salary was $94,626, which is Step 21 (with M.A.) in the teachers’ salary guide to the parties’ CNA. The Board did not inform the Association of the reduction in A.R.’s salary resulting from the abolishment of her Supervisor of Special Services position and appointment to the Coordinator of Special Services position. ¶

Although both roles are in “special services,” differences between the Supervisor of Special Services and Coordinator of Special Services positions include: ¶

• The Supervisor position was responsible for formally observing and evaluating teachers, while the Coordinator position is an instructional position without a set classroom; ¶

• The Supervisor position required the supervisor administrative certificate, while the Coordinator position requires only an instructional certificate; ¶

• The Supervisor position was a 12-month position, while the Coordinator position is a 10-month position. ¶

In 2022, another Board employee, D.F., received a performance-based non-renewal (not a RIF) as a vice principal in the RAA unit. D.F. was reappointed as a climate and culture specialist in the Association’s unit. D.F.’s vice principal salary was higher than, but very close to, the salary in his new Association position set by the CNA. The Board allowed D.F. to “redline” or maintain his higher vice principal salary for one year as a climate and culture specialist. After that one year, D.F.’s salary in his new position, based on the Association’s CNA’s salary guide, reached or exceeded the amount of his “redlined” vice principal salary. ¶

Arguments ¶

The Board excepts to the Hearing Examiner’s finding that it was required to negotiate A.R.’s salary even though she was returned to her teaching position at the top of the Association’s salary guide. It asserts that A.R.’s salary was not “reduced” because her supervisory position was abolished and she is in a different position represented by a different union and receiving the previously negotiated salary set forth in that CNA. The Board argues it had no obligation to renegotiate the salary for the position she returned to on the Association’s negotiated salary guide. The Board argues that if the Association is challenging whether A.R.’s salary guide placement was consistent with the CNA, it should have filed for grievance arbitration rather than an unfair practice charge. The Board argues that former vice principal D.F.’s situation is distinguishable because he was not RIF’d for economy and efficiency but was non-renewed. ¶

The Association asserts that the Board violated the Act by unilaterally reducing A.R.’s compensation without negotiations. It argues that just because her previous position was abolished as part of a RIF does not make her salary reduction non- negotiable. The Association acknowledges that A.R.’s step placement on the Association’s guide “was negotiated long ago” but asserts that this case concerns the Board’s unilateral change and is not a grievance arbitration about salary guide placement. The Association also notes that it has never contended that the RIF was illegal or improper or that A.R.’s tenure rights have been denied. The Association argues that “past practice” arguments “are irrelevant and should be dismissed” because those would be contractual arguments for grievance arbitration and they did not file a grievance in this matter. ¶

Analysis ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 sets forth a public employer’s obligation to negotiate with a majority representative before changing working conditions: ¶

Proposed new rules or modifications of existing rules governing working conditions shall be negotiated with the majority representative before they are established. In addition, the majority representative and designated representatives of the public employer shall meet at reasonable times and negotiate in good faith with respect to grievances, disciplinary disputes, and other terms and conditions of employment. ¶

The Supreme Court has thus held that changes in negotiable terms and conditions of employment must be addressed through the collective negotiations process because unilateral action is destabilizing to the employment relationship and contrary to the principles of our Act. See, e.g., Atlantic Cty., 230 N.J. 237, 252 (2017); Middletown Tp., 166 N.J. 112 (2000), aff’ g 334 N.J. Super. 512 (App. Div. 1999); and Hunterdon Cty. Freeholder Bd. and CWA, 116 N.J. 322, 337-338 (1989). ¶

A public employer’s unilateral change to negotiable terms and conditions of employment may constitute an unfair practice in violation of subsection 5.4a(5) of the Act. City of Newark (App. Div. 2023), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2022-47, 49 NJPER 17 (¶4 2022). An employer violates 5.4a(1) independently if its action tends to interfere with an employee’s statutory rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial business justification and, derivatively, when an employer violates another unfair practice provision. Lakehurst Bd. of Ed. (App. Div. 2005), aff’ g P.E.R.C. No. 2004-74, 30 NJPER 186 (¶69 2004). ¶

Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982), articulates the standards for determining whether a subject is mandatorily negotiable: ¶

[A] subject is negotiable between public employers and employees when (1) the item intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To decide whether a negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy, it is necessary to balance the interests of the public employees and the public employer. When the dominant concern is the government’s managerial prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees’ working conditions. ¶

[Id. at 404-405]. ¶

The Board has a statutory right and managerial prerogative to abolish positions and reduce its staff for organizational and budgetary reasons pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9. See Old Bridge Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Old Bridge Tp. Ed Ass’n, 98 N.J. 523 (1985); In re Maywood Bd. of Ed., 168 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 1979), certif. den., 81 N.J. 292 (1979). The Board also has a non- negotiable “managerial duty to deploy personnel in the manner which it considers most likely to promote the overall goal of providing all students with a thorough and efficient education.” Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 156 (1978). ¶

In this case, after the abolishment of A.R.’s 12-month supervisory position represented by the RAA, the Board did not unilaterally establish a new salary for her when she continued employment for the Board in a 10-month teaching position represented by the Association. Rather, the Board applied the salary it had already negotiated in its CNA with the Association for A.R.’s position based on her experience and education. It is undisputed that the Board placed A.R. on the appropriate step of the parties’ negotiated teacher salary guide when she returned to her 10-month Coordinator of Special Services position. ¶

Furthermore, the Association does not assert that the Board violated any agreement or past practice between the parties to maintain an employee’s salary from their abolished position in the RAA unit instead of receiving the previously negotiated salary for their position in the Association unit. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Linden Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-2, 48 NJPER 100 (¶24 2021), aff’d, 49 NJPER 203 (¶48 App. Div. 2022), relied on by the Hearing Examiner. In Linden, after two employees were reassigned from eliminated 12-month coordinator positions to lower salaried 10-month teaching positions in the same unit, the union asserted that the salary reduction violated the CNA and sought grievance arbitration. The Commission denied the board’s request to restrain binding arbitration, holding that, while the board had a managerial prerogative to eliminate the 12-month positions, the issue of “red-circling” or “redlining” their salaries so that they were not reduced to that of the new position was negotiable in the abstract. Therefore, we found that an arbitrator could determine whether the parties actually had an agreement to maintain the higher salary of an abolished position and, if so, whether the board violated it with its guide placement. ¶

Here, by contrast, the Association’s UPC alleges that the Board had an affirmative duty to seek negotiations over A.R.’s salary placement as a non-supervisory Coordinator of Special Services, despite there being no dispute that the Board provided her with the salary according to the parties’ negotiated salary guide. In the context of an unfair practice charge alleging a failure to negotiate over a unilateral reduction in compensation, we can consider the merits of the Board’s defense that its CNA with the Association already has a negotiated salary guide applicable to A.R.’s non-supervisory coordinator position. See, e.g., Elmwood Park Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 85-115, 11 NJPER 366 (¶16129 1985) (employer may defeat 5.4a(5) claim for failure to negotiate if it has a contractual right to make the change); South River Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 86-132, 12 NJPER 447 (¶17167 1986), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 170 (¶149 App. Div. 1987) (if contract allows the changes, then the union has waived its right to negotiate the changes during the term of the contract). ¶

Accordingly, as A.R.’s supervisory position in the RAA unit was abolished and she has been reappointed as a Coordinator of Special Services in the Association’s unit and appropriately placed on that CNA’s previously negotiated salary guide, the Board did not violate the Act by not re-negotiating her salary. ¶

This case is also distinguishable from the precedent cited by the Hearing Examiner in which employees had their hours reduced within the same position and same negotiations unit. See, e.g., Robbinsville Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Washington Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 227 N.J. 192 (2016) (imposing three furlough days for teachers); Galloway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Galloway Tp. Ass’n of Ed. Sec., 78 N.J. 1 (1978) (reducing secretarial workday by three hours); In re Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed., 164 N.J. Super. 98 (App. Div. 1978) (principals’ work year reduced from 12 to 10 months); UMDNJ and AAUP, P.E.R.C. No. 86-148, 12 NJPER 532 (¶17200 1986) (issue of which faculty demoted from administrative to teaching positions would receive limited number of salary cap exemptions was negotiable, so salary terms for those teaching faculty were not fully negotiated and in dispute); and Hackettstown Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-139, 6 NJPER 263 (¶11124 1980), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 108 (¶89 App. Div. 1982), certif. den., 89 N.J. 429 (1982) (11 and 12-month teaching positions replaced with new 10-month positions “of an identical nature” ). Here, by contrast, A.R. did not have her hours or compensation as a Supervisor of Special Services reduced, but when that position was abolished she returned to a different, pre-existing non-supervisory position in a different unit and was placed at the previously negotiated salary for that position. ¶

Our holding in this case that the Board had no duty to re- negotiate A.R.’s Coordinator salary is supported by Commission precedent in Spotswood Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 86-90, 12 NJPER 195 (¶17073 1986) and Asbury Park Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2006-52, 32 NJPER 14 (~7 2006). In Spotswood, we restrained arbitration of the union’s challenge to an employee’s reduced work year and salary, finding that “the reduction in [grievant]’s work year was the direct consequence of the Board’s staff reduction, rather than a reduction of the work year of a job which remained on the employer’s organizational table, as in Piscataway.” Unlike in Linden, the union did not claim a contractual agreement to maintain the salary of her prior position. We therefore found: “Even though the grievant’s terms and conditions of employment were changed from one year to the next, she moved between two positions whose terms and conditions of employment were fully negotiated.” Spotswood, supra. Similarly, in Asbury Park, we restrained arbitration of the union’s challenge to an employee’s reduced salary caused by the abolition of her 12-month facilitator position and reassignment to a 10-month teaching position, finding that the union could not undermine the board’s managerial prerogative by making a claim to continuing compensation for the eliminated position. ¶

The Association also relies on the Board’s treatment of former vice principal D.F., who was permitted to maintain his salary for one year after being non-renewed and appointed to a position in the Association’s unit. We are not persuaded that D.F.’s circumstances require a different result. The Board explains that D.F.'s circumstances differed in several material respects. As set forth in its exceptions brief, D.F. was non-renewed rather than affected by a reduction in force, his former position was not abolished, and the temporary salary protection involved only a minimal difference that disappeared once the negotiated salary guide caught up. We agree that these distinctions materially differentiate D.F.'s situation from A.R.'s and do not establish that the Board was required to negotiate or continue A.R.'s former supervisory salary. ¶

Accordingly, D.F.'s circumstances do not alter our conclusion. Nor has the Association established a past practice requiring the Board to maintain the salary of an abolished supervisory position after an employee is reappointed to a different position covered by the Association's negotiated salary guide. As discussed above, A.R. was placed on the negotiated salary for her Coordinator position, and the Board was not obligated to reopen negotiations simply because that salary was lower than the compensation attached to her eliminated supervisory position. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Roselle Education Association’s motion for summary judgment is denied. The Roselle Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The Association’s unfair practice charge is dismissed. ¶

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 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 press grievances presented by majority representative.” ¶

2/ The Association’s opposition brief also relies on its September 19, 2025 brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and its October 6 brief in opposition to the Board’s cross-motion for summary judgment. ¶