P.E.R.C. No. 2027-8, Gloucester Cty

CaptionP.E.R.C. 2027-8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-020 CWA LOCAL 1085, Respondent. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies CWA Local 1085’s motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43. In that decision, the Commission found that the CWA’s grievances were not legally arbitrable because they concerned the grievant not being selected for full-time positions, which implicated the County’s managerial prerogative to make hiring decisions. However, the Commission found the CWA’s grievances legally arbitrable only to the extent they sought an explanation for the grievant not being selected for the full-time positions. The Commission finds that the CWA’s motion for reconsideration does not meet the standard of establishing extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance and declines the CWA’s argument that the Commission’s decision incorrectly made factual findings in favor of the County despite it not submitting a factual certification. The Commission concludes that the totality of the record supports the Commission’s finding that the gravamen of the CWA’s grievances pertained to the County’s managerial prerogative to deny the grievant a full-time position. ¶

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 COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2026-020 CWA LOCAL 1085, Respondent. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Petitioner, Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys (Michael J. DiPiero, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

For the Respondent, Weissman & Mintz, LLC, attorneys (Ira W. Mintz, of counsel and on the brief) ¶

DECISION ¶

On June 12, 2026, CWA Local 1085 (CWA) filed a motion for reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43, 53 NJPER 16 (¶6 2026). In that decision, the Commission granted the request of the County of Gloucester (County) for a restraint of binding arbitration of grievances filed by CWA contesting the County’s decisions not to hire the grievant, a part-time Public Safety Telecommunicator (PST), to certain full-time positions. The Commission found that the grievances are not legally arbitrable because they concerned the grievant not being selected for full-time positions, which concerns the County’s managerial prerogative to make hiring decisions to meet the governmental policy goal of matching the best qualified employees to particular jobs. However, the Commission denied the County’s request for a restraint of binding arbitration to the extent CWA’s grievances sought an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected. ¶

CWA argues that its motion for reconsideration should be granted because the Commission’s decision erroneously made findings of fact in favor of the County despite it not certifying to any facts as required by N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.6.1/ CWA argues that there is no record evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusion that the grievances involved a hiring or promotional decision. CWA asserts that the grievances were about an employee with less seniority than the grievant having her hours increased from part-time to full-time in violation of the CNA’s seniority provisions. CWA further asserts that the Commission accepted as true the County’s assertion that it had chosen candidates found more qualified for the full-time positions and deprived CWA of its rights to challenge those assertions with its own certifications or through an evidentiary hearing. CWA also argues that the Commission allowing CWA to seek through arbitration an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the full-time positions was inadequate because CWA did not grieve the County’s failure to explain its decision. ¶

In response to CWA’s motion, the County argues that CWA’s grievances challenged the County’s non-negotiable hiring and promotional decisions regarding the grievant’s denial of a full- time position. The County asserts that it submitted 6 exhibits and its Counsel’s certification,2/ which support the finding that the grievance pertained to its decision to not promote the grievant from a part-time to a full-time position. The County further asserts that CWA had every opportunity to provide its own certification and exhibits to establish that its grievances were challenging a denial of a work schedule increase rather than the rejection of a promotional opportunity. The County argues that the record evidence establishes that CWA’s grievances pertained to the grievant seeking a full-time position and not simply a work schedule increase. ¶

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.” N.J.A.C. 19:13-3.12(a). Motions for reconsideration are not to be used to reiterate facts or arguments that were, or could have been, previously raised. See Bergen Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2019-20, 45 NJPER 208 (¶54 2018), denying recon. I.R. No. 2019-6, 45 NJPER 123 (¶33 2018); and Union Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2002-55, 28 NJPER 198 (¶33070 2002), denying recon. I.R. No. 2002-7, 28 NJPER 86 (¶3031 2001). ¶

CWA’s motion for reconsideration does not meet the standard of establishing extraordinary circumstances or exceptional importance. CWA reiterates arguments raised below that were rejected by the Commission. (See CWA’s December 19, 2025 brief at 3.) Namely, CWA reiterates that its grievance pertained to the denial of the grievant’s request to increase work hours, rather than the denial of a promotional opportunity from a part-time to a full-time position. The Commission decision’s key finding that is being challenged by CWA’s motion for reconsideration is the following: ¶

Initially, we decline CWA’s argument that this dispute concerns the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule and not his desire to be hired into a full-time PST position or promoted into another full- time position. ¶

[P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43 at 8.] ¶

We find that conclusion is sufficiently supported by the record evidence. The Commission determines scope of negotiations petitions based on the totality of the certified facts and arguments raised by the parties, and may look beyond the initial grievance documents to determine the essence of a union’s claim. See Teaneck Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-54, 50 NJPER 15 (¶6 2023); Elizabeth Bd. of Ed. and Elizabeth Ed. Ass’n, P.E.R.C. No. 2016-22, 42 NJPER 215 (¶60 2015). Despite the lack of factual certifications, the record evidence establishes that the grievance pertained to the denial of the grievant’s application to a full-time position. CWA’s February 19, 2025, grievance identified the dispute as follows: ¶

Grievant is a 22 year part-time PST and has been seeking a full-time position. Grievant has had multiple meetings with the department’s management, and despite his request to move to full time, the department has posted a CWA job announcement dated 2/11/25 for more full-time PST trainees. Grievant is an experienced PST with a good work record and no past discipline and should receive any full-time opening over an inexperienced trainee. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

CWA filed another grievance on May 16, 2025, identifying the dispute as follows: ¶

GC PSTs received an email notifying them of a full-time opening in the EMS/Fire room, stating the opening was for “any police room dispatchers interested in voluntarily switching to the fire room on a full-time basis.” Notification also states the department would abide by the contract and everything would be done by seniority. Although grievant is not a police room dispatcher, he requested the position and would not require any of the offered training. Grievant was told his “desire” was previously sent to Woodbury, disregarding the grievant’s request for the current opening. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

CWA’s July 15, 2025 request for arbitration identifying the grievance to be arbitrated states: ¶

Grievant is a 22-year part-time PST and received a 5/9/25 work email from the employer advertising for a full-time position that the grievant was already working in as a part-time employee. Despite the employer stating in the email that the contract would be followed in regard to seniority, grievant was denied an interview and the position despite having both seniority and experience over the employee given the position. ¶

[Emphasis added.] ¶

The record supports that the grievant has consistently framed the dispute as his seeking a full-time position posted by the County and being denied the position in violation of the CNA’s seniority preferences. Moreover, the email thread exhibits submitted by the County are replete with references by the grievant seeking a full-time position with leadership responsibilities and full-time employment. This connotes a change in position and not simply a request for an increase in work hours. ¶

CWA asserts that the Commission improperly found, without any certified facts, that “the County has already determined that other candidates were better qualified.” See P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43 at n. 5. This “finding” was stated in a footnote supporting the proposition that “this dispute centers around the County’s hiring decisions, not the negotiability of the grievant’s individual work schedule.” (emphasis added). As stated above, the record is replete with references to the grievant being denied full-time positions. ¶

Moreover, the December 16, 2024, email exchange between the grievant and the County’s Director of Emergency response stated, “As such, there’s nothing else, in a Leadership/Management position, that’s available currently. Jack’s been asking to bring on additional OEM Staff and is strenuously arguing for some young, eager to learn, and willing to work bodies (as opposed to retired police or Fire guys/girls).” 3/ The email thread further alludes that another better suited employee was being recommended for the “only (administrative) opening at that level.” These statements implicate the County’s managerial prerogative to select the best candidates for positions based on qualifications it deems appropriate for the position. ¶

Based on the totality of the parties’ submissions, including the County Counsel’s certification, exhibits, and arguments, we find that the record supports the Commission’s finding that the gravamen of the grievances pertained to the County’s managerial prerogative to deny the grievant a full-time position. The Commission declined to restrain arbitration to the extent the grievance sought an explanation as to why the grievant was not selected for the full-time positions. Arbitration on this issue can elucidate how the County exercised its managerial prerogative to select the best candidate for the particular full-time positions or why the grievant was not deemed the best candidate. ¶

For all the foregoing reasons, we find that CWA has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and exceptional importance warranting reconsideration of P.E.R.C. No. 2026-43. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

CWA Local 1085's motion for reconsideration in denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

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. The Commission’s decision noted that CWA did not file a certification, and the County counsel’s certification only recited procedural facts and authenticated exhibits included with the certification. ¶

2/ Counsel submitted a certification stating, “I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances related to this matter including those set forth in the Statement of Facts in the County’s brief for which this Certification has been filed.” ¶

3/ In its brief, CWA argues that this response constitutes age discrimination. However, such claims are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction and must be made in the appropriate forum provided by anti-discrimination laws, such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR), or the courts. See Teaneck Bd. of Ed. v. Teaneck Teachers Ass’n, 94 N.J. 9, 14-18 (1983). ¶