P.E.R.C. No. 2027-7, Collingswood B/E

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COLLINGSWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-022 COLLINGSWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Commission partially grants the request of the Collingswood Board of Education for a restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Collingswood Education Association which seeks the cessation of non-evaluative classroom walkthroughs and observations of unit members by the Department Coordinator, a newly created unit position. The Commission finds that those job duties of the Department Coordinator are not legally arbitrable because public employers have a managerial prerogative to deploy staff in a manner which promotes educational policy. If the Department Coordinator’s feedback is used improperly in a teacher’s formal evaluation, the Commission finds the Association could file a grievance, contest any related procedural issues, or dispute any related discipline under the CNA’s just cause provision. The Commission finds the Association may also raise with the Commissioner of Education any claim relating to the use of such feedback in a manner that allegedly violates school law or regulations. The Commission denies the Board’s scope petition as to the remaining portions of the grievance, allowing the Association’s claims regarding contractual notice, job-posting, and the negotiation of the position’s stipend and schedule to proceed to arbitration. ¶

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 COLLINGSWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-022 COLLINGSWOOD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Capehart Scatchard, attorneys ¶

(Jodi S. Howlett, of counsel) ¶

For the Respondent, Selikoff & Cohen, P.A., attorneys (Hop Wechsler, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

On December 9, 2025, the Collingswood Board of Education (Board) filed a scope of negotiations petition seeking a partial restraint of binding arbitration of a grievance filed by the Collingswood Education Association (Association). The grievance alleges that the Board violated the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA) by converting a supervisory position into a stipended unit position, filling the position without posting it or notifying the Association, and not removing a disputed performance responsibility from the position of Department Coordinator. The Board seeks a finding that “the disputed provision of the job description is non-negotiable and that the Board is not required to bargain over the inclusion, removal, or wording of these job duties.” ¶

The Board filed briefs, exhibits, and the certification of its counsel, Jodi S. Howlett.1/ The Association filed a brief, exhibits, and the certifications of: Association President Robin Hogan; Denise Tinges, an English Language Arts Teacher; and Laura Gillan, a Science Teacher. These facts appear. ¶

The Association represents all personnel “whether under contract, on leave, on a per diem basis, employed or to be employed by the Board, excluding substitutes and summer school personnel,” and including only job titles specified in the CNA’s recognition clause. These include Classroom Teachers, Academic Coaches, and certain “Extra Duty Personnel” such as Department Coordinators and Head Teachers, among others. The Board and Association are parties to a CNA in effect from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027. The CNA provides that no employee shall be disciplined without just cause. The CNA’s grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration and defines “grievance” as a dispute over “the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of [the CNA], Board polices, or administrative decisions affecting an employee or group of employees.” ¶

The Association President certifies that on August 14, 2025, she became aware that the Board converted what was previously a vacant Interim Supervisor position into a Department Chair position, making it a stipended unit position, without notifying the Association, and that the Board was in the process of interviewing candidates for the position. The position was later renamed Department Coordinator. She further certifies that on August 25, 2025, the Board approved a candidate for the position. ¶

The record includes a copy of the job description for the Department Coordinator position. It specifies that Department Coordinators must have a master’s degree and hold a New Jersey teaching certification. The performance responsibilities of the position include, in relevant part: ¶

5. Observes and provides feedback to teachers related to instruction; feedback is never included as part of a staff member’s evaluation process. ¶

On August 25, 2025, the Association filed a grievance alleging, among other things: On July 29th, two interim supervisor positions were posted on the district website, with a salary range of $101,027 - $145,000 for a 12 month position; on August 14, during an interview, the Board violated the parties’ CNA by creating and filling the Department Coordinator position without posting it first, thus denying Association members the opportunity to apply for the position; the position will create additional workload for other teachers who would be required to teach classes eliminated from the schedules of the successful candidates; and the stipend amount of $18,000, which the Board later offered to candidates, was not approved by the Association as required by the contract. ¶

The grievance identified the following articles of the CNA allegedly violated by the Board: Article X.C (requiring notice of all open positions); Article XXII.D (requiring that salaries and increments for extra duty pay contracts be “approved by the Association President and added to the appropriate schedule at the next opportunity” ); and Article I.A (list of contractually approved titles). As originally filed, the grievance requested that the Board cease and desist taking actions toward the new position until it has been posted and the stipend amount approved by the Association. ¶

With its request for arbitration, the Association submitted a version of the grievance marked “amended for arbitration,” with amended portions highlighted in yellow. The highlighted text specifies that the alleged contract violations listed in the grievance as originally filed “are not to the exclusion of any other articles of the [CNA]; Board policy; staff manuals and handbooks; past practice; Article 1, Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the New Jersey State Constitution; or state statute et.al.” The amendment also modifies the remedy sought to include proposed amendments to the CNA’s grievance procedure; the addition of Department Coordinator to a proposed new district-wide schedule; and the cessation of observations of unit members, including classroom walkthroughs, by the Department Coordinator.2/ ¶

The Association certifies that the Department Coordinator’s walkthroughs have been conducted in the presence of other administrators,3/ unlike classroom visitations performed by other stipended instructional coaches. The Association contends that feedback given by the Department Coordinator in the presence of other administrators “could easily resurface in a later evaluation,” thus making the role “quasi-administrative,” or be used to support disciplinary action, effectively making the Department Coordinator a “mole against other unit members.” ¶

The Association President certifies that as of the date of her certification, all four components of the Association’s grievance - the job posting, the stipend, the stipend schedule, and the walkthroughs - remain unresolved. She also certifies that because the disputed walkthroughs are “quasi-administrative” work, the Association has not approved the stipend for the Department Coordinator position. ¶

On December 8, 2025, the Association filed a Request for Submission of a Panel of Arbitrators. This petition ensued. ¶

Our jurisdiction is narrow. We are addressing a single issue in the abstract: whether the subject matter in dispute is within the scope of collective negotiations. The merits of the Association’s claimed violation of the agreement, as well as the Board’s contractual defenses, are not in issue, because those are matters for the arbitrator to decide if the Commission determines that the question is one that may be arbitrated. Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978). ¶

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]. ¶

We must balance the parties’ interests in light of the particular facts and arguments presented. City of Jersey City v. Jersey City POBA, 154 N.J. 555, 574-575 (1998). ¶

The Board asserts that the grievance is outside the scope of negotiations to the extent it seeks to interfere with the Board’s managerial prerogative to establish job descriptions and assign duties to its employees. ¶

The Association concedes job descriptions are a managerial prerogative but argues no such prerogative exists to require a unit member to conduct walkthroughs of other unit members’ classrooms, and no statute or regulation preempts negotiation over “non-evaluative” walkthroughs done by employees who do not hold supervisory certifications, such as the Department Coordinator.4/ The Association contends that if it is not a supervisory position and belongs in the unit, then it is a negotiable issue as to whether the Department Coordinator’s classroom visitations for coaching purposes should be conducted unaccompanied by other administrators, like those done by other stipended instructional coach positions. ¶

The Board replies that its core managerial functions include the right to observe, supervise, and provide feedback to employees as part of routine oversight, and this right is independent of school law governing teachers’ performance evaluations. The fact that the Department Coordinator’s observations are not conducted pursuant to that law, the Board argues, does not make those observations mandatorily negotiable. The Board points out that the Association’s concerns about the potential use of a Department Coordinator’s observational feedback in performance evaluations or discipline are speculative. It contends that negotiation over the assignment of observational duties, whether performed in the company of other administrators or not, would constrain the Board’s ability to oversee its operations, structure staff, and assign duties accordingly. ¶

ANALYSIS ¶

We grant the Board’s request to restrain arbitration of the grievance to the extent it seeks the cessation of observations of unit members by the Department Coordinator (whether in the presence of other administrators or not). We find negotiation over this issue would significantly interfere with the Board’s determination of educational policy and thus is not legally arbitrable. ¶

The Board has a managerial prerogative to deploy its 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, supra, at 156. Moreover, negotiated agreements cannot significantly interfere with an employer’s rights to select evaluators, or to have supervisors conduct informal classroom visits. Woodbury Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2000-108, 26 NJPER 313 (¶31127 2000); Fairlawn Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-39, 9 NJPER 648 (¶14281 1983) (requirement that board provide teachers with a written report every time a principal visited their classrooms was not mandatorily negotiable, except when such a visit may affect a formal evaluation). As such, the Board’s selection of administrators to conduct formal evaluations is not mandatorily negotiable, nor are its decisions to deploy administrators in non-evaluative classroom visits. ¶

Evaluative criteria are not mandatorily negotiable, however, procedural provisions “concerning the number and timing of formal observations; providing that employees be notified in advance of the identity of their evaluator; requiring notice of evaluative criteria and changes in such criteria; and providing that an employee be given a statement of reasons for a personnel decision” have been held to be mandatorily negotiable. Woodbury Bd. of Ed., supra (citing, e.g., Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bethlehem Tp. Ed. Ass’n, 91 N.J. 38 (1982)). See also, Pinelands Reg. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-28, 48 NJPER 298 (¶66 2022) (finding mandatorily negotiable and arbitrable contractual provision prohibiting “monitoring or observation of the work performance of an employee” without the “full knowledge of the employee,” as this was in the nature of a procedural notice requirement).5/ ¶

Here, the relevant job description sets forth the Board’s policy that feedback from a Department Coordinator “is never included as part of a staff member’s evaluation process.” The Association’s certifications contain no factual allegation that classroom observations conducted by the Department Coordinator, whether or not in the presence of school administrators, have either affected a teacher’s formal evaluation or resulted in discipline. Should either occur, the Association would have the right to challenge it in a future grievance over the application of the Board’s policy prohibiting the use of such feedback in evaluations, or contesting any related discipline under the CNA’s just cause provision. Additionally, the Board’s non-negotiable right to select evaluators would apply even in a situation where a supervisor based a formal evaluation upon observations made while in the company of the Department Coordinator during a classroom visit. Should that occur, any alleged failure by the Board to provide adequate notice to the affected employee of the evaluator’s identity, the timing of the evaluation, or the criteria to be used would be legally arbitrable. ¶

In the event the Department Coordinator’s feedback from classroom observations is used in a manner which the Association contends violates Title 18A or related regulations, the Association may also raise that issue with the Commissioner of Education. See, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 (Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over “controversies and disputes arising under the school laws” ). See also, Bethlehem Tp. Bd. of Ed., supra (negotiation over requirement that evaluators possess certain certificates was preempted by controlling school-law regulation); Rutherford Boro. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 85-96, 11 NJPER 223 (¶16086 1985) (same). ¶

To the extent the Association questions whether the Department Coordinator should be excluded from the unit because it may be a supervisory position,6/ the proper forum to resolve such a dispute is not via grievance arbitration but through a clarification of unit (CU) petition filed with the Commission. See, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6(d) (empowering Commission “to resolve questions concerning representation of public employees” ); N.J.A.C. 19:11-1.5 (exclusive representative or public employer may petition for clarification of unit).7/ The record contains no indication such a CU petition was filed by either party in connection with this matter. ¶

Lastly, we do not address or restrain arbitration of the Association’s claims regarding the Board’s alleged violations of contractual notice and job-posting provisions, and its claim that the Board violated the CNA by failing to negotiate either the stipend amount or a stipend schedule for the Department Coordinator position. The Board does not request restraint of those contractual claims in its scope petition, nor does it challenge their negotiability in its supporting papers. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

Based upon the foregoing, we grant the Board’s request to restrain arbitration of the Association’s grievance to the extent it seeks the cessation of observations of unit members by the Department Coordinator (whether in the presence of other administrators or not). The Association’s contractual notice, job-posting, and stipend-negotiation claims may proceed to arbitration. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: September 24, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6(f) requires that all pertinent facts be supported by certifications based upon personal knowledge. ¶

2/ On February 2, 2026, the Board filed a letter of objection, contending that the Association’s attempt to revise the grievance after the original grievance was filed is procedurally improper and prejudicial. On February 3, the Association filed a response asserting that the amendment did not add new allegations but merely updated the grievance alleging the Board’s failure to negotiate either the stipend or a stipend schedule for “extra duty personnel” unit positions. We dismiss the Board’s objection because it pertains to a question of procedural arbitrability, which is a matter that should be left to the arbitrator to decide and thus is outside our scope of negotiations jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bor. of Bradley Beach, P.E.R.C. No. 2023-2, 49 NJPER 111, 113 (¶24 2022), and cases cited therein. ¶

3/ The Science teacher certifies that on September 18, 2025, the Department Coordinator conducted an unannounced walkthrough of her class accompanied by “multiple administrators.” The English Language Arts teacher certifies that on January 15, 2026, the Department Coordinator, accompanied by two Assistant Principals, conducted an unannounced walkthrough of her class. ¶

4/ The Association posits that if feedback from the Department Coordinator’s walkthroughs were directly or indirectly used in a staff member’s performance evaluation, it would violate pertinent school law and regulations requiring evaluative observations to be conducted by an appropriately certified school administrator, principal, or supervisor. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117, et seq. (TEACHNJ Act); N.J.A.C. 6A:10- 1.2. ¶

5/ To the extent the Board claims that the Association’s grievance seeks an alteration of the Department Coordinator’s job description, that is not a mandatorily negotiable subject except insofar as a job description specifies terms and conditions of employment such as, for example, compensation and hours of work. Hoboken Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 84-139, 10 NJPER 353 (¶15164 1984) (citing West Deptford Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 80-95, 6 NJPER 56 (¶11030 1980)). ¶

6/ See, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 (generally precluding from membership in a nonsupervisory unit anyone “having the power to hire, discharge, discipline, or to effectively recommend the same” ); N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6 (except in limited circumstances, “no unit shall be appropriate which includes (1) both supervisors and nonsupervisors” ) ¶

7/ See also, Ridgefield Bd. of Ed., D.R. No. 98-12, 24 NJPER 89 (¶29048 1997) (dismissing association’s CU petition seeking to remove “consociate teacher” title from existing non- supervisory unit, where relevant job description did not require supervisor’s certification and position’s duties, which involved coaching and observation of other teachers, did not result in discipline, and classroom observations did not “rise to the level of formal classroom observations used by principals to prepare annual evaluations or make personnel decisions” ). ¶