P.E.R.C. No. 2027-9, PBA Loc 334

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PBA LOCAL 334, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2022-015 JUAN MENDOZA, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission denies Juan Mendoza's exceptions to a Hearing Examiner's decision dismissing an unfair practice charge filed against PBA Local 334. Mendoza, a former president of PBA Local 334, alleged that the Local retaliated against him for filing an unfair practice charge by suspending his membership for three years and banning him from holding a future union leadership position. The Hearing Examiner concluded that these disciplinary actions were initiated and adjudicated by the State PBA, who was not a named party to the dispute. The record also reflected that the State PBA and Local are separate entities. Accordingly, the Commission affirms the Hearing Examiner’s Report. ¶

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 334, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2022-015 JUAN MENDOZA, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Crivelli Barbati & DeRose, LLC, attorneys, (Frank Crivelli, of counsel) ¶

For the Charging Party, (Juan Mendoza, Pro Se) ¶

DECISION ¶

On April 22, 2026, Juan Mendoza filed exceptions to certain aspects of the Hearing Examiner’s Report and Recommended Order, H.E. No. 2026, 52 NJPER 301 (¶82 2026). The Hearing Examiner determined that Policeman’s Benevolent Association, Local 334 (Local 334 or “the Local” ) did not violate N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3b(1) by retaliating against Mendoza for engaging in protected activity under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act). N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. On May 13, Local 334 filed opposition to the exceptions. ¶

PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶

On January 11, 2022, Mendoza filed an unfair practice charge (UPC) against Local 334, which was amended on February 25. The UPC alleged that the Local violated sections 5.4b(1) through (5) of the Act by disciplining Mendoza for violating PBA Bylaws and by refusing to process a grievance on his behalf. Mendoza alleged that both actions were retaliation for his public disclosure of alleged financial impropriety by Local 334 officials and for filing an unfair practice charge with this agency. ¶

On June 22, 2023, the Director of Unfair Practices dismissed Mendoza’s claims with the exception of his 5.4b(1) claim that Local 334 breached its duty of fair representation with respect to not processing his grievance. D.U.P. No. 2023-28, 50 NJPER 27 (¶9 2023) ¶

On June 29, 2023, Mendoza filed for special permission to appeal the parts of his UPC that had been dismissed. The Commission, on October 26, remanded the matter to the Director for issuance of a complaint alleging the Local violated section 5.4b(1)1/ when it suspended Mendoza from union membership for retaliation for his alleged protected conduct. P.E.R.C. No. 2024-16, 50 NJPER 243 (¶54 2023).2/ ¶

On May 20, 2024, Local 334 filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all counts of the complaint. On September 26, the Commission denied the motion and referred the case for an evidentiary hearing.3/ P.E.R.C. No. 2025-3, 51 NJPER 105 (¶25 2024). ¶

A hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on August 26, 2025, October 16, and December 10. The Hearing Examiner issued her report and recommended decision on April 14, 2026. The Hearing Examiner determined that Local 334 did not violate the Act because it was the State PBA and not Local 334 that disciplined Mendoza for failing to exhaust internal union remedies before filing a UPC. However, the Hearing Examiner concluded that Local 334 breached its duty of fair representation when it refused to assist Mendoza in processing a grievance on his behalf.4/ ¶

SUMMARY OF FACTS ¶

We adopt the Hearing Examiners findings of fact. Where citations are not to the Hearing Examiner’s report, we make those additional findings of fact. ¶

Mendoza is employed by Hudson County as a Sheriff’s Officer. (Factual Finding (F.F.) ¶1). Local 334 is the majority representative for the County’s non-supervisory Sheriff’s Officers. (F.F. ¶1). The Local is subordinate to the State PBA, and each entity has its own constitution and bylaws. (3TR71-72). ¶

Prior to 2019, Mendoza served as Treasurer with the Local. (1TR94). In October 2019, he became President. (F.F. ¶2). On December 23, 2019, Mendoza emailed all Local members, sharing allegations of financial impropriety by other union officials and appointing a Judiciary Committee to investigate the alleged misuse of funds. (F.F. ¶3). ¶

On January 17, 2020, the State PBA informed Local 334 of its intent to assume temporary operations of the Local. (F.F. ¶4). According to correspondence from then State PBA President, Patrick Colligan, this action was to address “the many allegations that have been made against various members of [the Local].” (CP-6). The Hearing Examiner determined these internal problems, including “accusations of misappropriation of funds, how Mendoza became president of Local 334, personality conflicts, members filing complaints against one another, and members’ fear of retaliation...had been going on for an extended period of time, prior to Mendoza being elected President of Local 334.” (F.F. ¶15). On January 21, Local 334’s charter was suspended by the State PBA and Hassan Estrada, a union official from PBA Local 109 and the County Conference Chair, was appointed to operate the Local. (F.F. ¶5). ¶

On August 31, 2020, Mendoza filed internal union charges which sought to reinstate the Local 334 Executive Board, including himself as President. (CP-32; R-10). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a change in State PBA Judiciary Committee (Judiciary Committee) leadership, there was a delay in hearing the charges. (F.F. ¶7). On October 21, Mendoza filed an unfair practice charge against PBA Local 109 and Estrada, alleging that they violated the Act when they suspended him as Local 334 President, restricting him from collective negotiations and contract administration. (F.F. ¶6); (Docket No. CI-2021-008). This UPC was dismissed on May 12, 2021. (CP-30). ¶

On May 24, 2021, Michael Freeman, State PBA Vice President of Labor Relations, filed internal union charges against Mendoza.5/ (F.F. ¶12). Freeman alleged that: ¶

On or about October 19, 2020 Mendoza initiated an official proceeding by sending a letter to Jonathan Roth, Director of Unfair Practices and Representation at PERC. With the letter he included the form and attached pages alleging an UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE naming “Hassan Estrada, PBA 109” as the respondent. ¶

[CP-24]. ¶

Freeman further alleged that Mendoza violated State PBA rules by divulging internal union business to non-members, specifically the Director of Unfair Practices and PERC employees. He also alleged that Mendoza injured Hassan Estrada’s reputation with the Commission. Id. ¶

Freeman testified that he was motivated to file the charges against “Mendoza because he was obstructing the State PBA’s ability to return Local 334 to its own control” and because he believed “Mendoza attempted to usurp the authority of the President of the State PBA.” (F.F. ¶13). ¶

On June 15, 2021, the Judiciary Committee met to hear several issues regarding Local 334. The charges included Mendoza’s internal charges challenging the suspension of Local 334’s Executive Board and his allegations that the new election procedures were improper, along with Freeman’s charge against Mendoza. (F.F. ¶14). On July 27, Luke Sciallo, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, informed Mendoza that the Judiciary Committee denied both of Mendoza’s charges and sustained Freeman’s charge. (Id.) ¶

Specifically, the Judiciary Committee found that Mendoza violated the State PBA constitution and bylaws by making “a conscious choice to seek redress from outside of our organization by filing an Unfair Labor Practice Charge at PERC,” “attempt[ing] to circumvent State PBA oversight and divulging matters pertaining to the State PBA” by sending a Judiciary Committee letter to the Hudson County Counsel and PERC, and for going “outside this Organization to seek redress [by filing a UPC] and in turn tarnished the reputation of Hassan Estrada” with PERC before exhausting all remedies with the State PBA. (CP-32.3-32.4). The letter also documented the Judiciary Committee’s unanimous vote to suspend Mendoza from the PBA for three years and instituted a permanent ban from holding an Executive Board position within Local 334. (F.F. ¶16). ¶

Following this action, Local 334’s State PBA Delegate, Vivian Hernandez, emailed all Local 334 members informing them of the Judiciary Committee’s decision, and communicated to the members that “[Mendoza] is considered a member not in good standing for a period of 3 years and must forfeit any rights and benefits of membership” and to “take notice of above, and remember that you may not share PBA information or discuss PBA issues with a nonmember.” (CP-32.8). ¶

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ¶

Mendoza raises five exceptions to the Hearing Examiner’s Report and Recommended decision. He alleges the Hearing Examiner erred by: (I) finding Mendoza was not subjected to internal union charges for revealing alleged financial impropriety; (II) finding that there was an operational justification for punishing Mendoza for filing a UPC before exhausting internal remedies; (III) finding that the Local was not responsible for the adverse actions taken against Mendoza; (IV) failing to properly consider the connection between Mendoza’s disclosure of alleged financial misuse and the adverse action taken against him; and (V) not refunding dues for the time when he was suspended. As discussed, infra, we must only address Exception III because its resolution is dispositive of the remaining issues, all of which depend on whether responsibility for the challenged disciplinary actions can be attributed to Local 334. ¶

Exception III: Should the actions of non-party State PBA be attributed to Local 334? ¶

Mendoza takes exception to the Hearing Examiner’s legal conclusion that the internal disciplinary proceedings were initiated and adjudicated by the State PBA, not Local 334, and therefore Local 334 should not be held responsible for the actions taken against him. Mendoza argues that because the Local enforced the State PBA Judiciary Committee’s decision, responsibility should be attributed to the Local. Conversely, the Local argues that since the State PBA initiated and adjudicated the internal charges against Mendoza, without involvement from the Local’s Executive Board or officers, it cannot be held responsible. ¶

We deny Mendoza’s exception. We find that the record supports the Hearing Examiner’s finding that “Local 334, Mendoza’s majority representative, did not play any role in the State PBA’s decision to suspend Mendoza from membership for three years and exclude him from ever running for an Executive Board position.” (H.E. at p. 14). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4b(1) prohibits an employee organization from “interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act.” An employee organization violates this proscription when its action tends to interfere with protected rights and lacks a legitimate and substantial organizational justification. FOP, Lodge No. 12 (Colisanti), P.E.R.C. No. 90-65, 16 NJPER 126 (¶21049 1990). It is an unfair practice “where a majority representative arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or invidiously excludes or expels a negotiations unit employee seeking to participate in majority representative affairs affecting his or her employment conditions.” New Jersey State PBA and PBA Local 199 P.E.R.C. No. 2011-83, 38 NJPER 56 (¶8 2011); FOP Lodge 12 (Colisanti), P.E.R.C. No. 90-65, 16 NJPER 126 (¶21049 1991); PBA Local 199 (Abdul-Haqq), P.E.R.C. No. 81-14, 6 NJPER 384 (¶11198 1980). ¶

Implicit in this analysis is the threshold issue of whether the respondent performed or caused the action that is alleged to have violated the charging party’s rights. The State PBA and PBA Local 334 are distinct entities with separate governing documents. (3TR71-72). The actions of one entity cannot automatically be attributed to the other. ¶

Michael Freeman, Vice President and member of the State PBA, but not a member of Local 334, filed union charges against Mendoza. It is undisputed that the State PBA Judiciary Committee penalized Mendoza for his alleged violation of State PBA bylaws, specifically that he filed an unfair practice charge before exhausting internal union remedies and for divulging union business to this Commission and the Hudson County Counsel. The record also details that the State PBA effectuated the penalty through its internal judicial process and informed Local 334 members of the Judiciary Committee’s actions through State Delegate Vivian Hernandez. Moreover, the Local was under State PBA oversight at the time the charges were filed.6/ Local 334 was not operating independently as its day-to-day operations were controlled exclusively by the State PBA through Hassan Estrada. For these reasons, we adopt the Hearing Examiner’s conclusion that Local 334 did not take an adverse action against Mendoza. We need not reach Mendoza’s other exceptions, as all are predicated on this issue.7/ ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The Commission denies Juan Mendoza’s exceptions to H.E. No. 2026-6 and adopts the Hearing Examiner’s factual findings and legal conclusion that PBA Local 334 did not initiate or effectuate Mendoza’s suspension from union membership or his lifetime ban from union leadership. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

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

ISSUED: October 22, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ This section of the Act prohibits employee organizations, their representatives or agents from “[i]nterfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” ¶

2/ The Commission denied Local 334's motion for reconsideration of this decision on December 14, 2023. P.E.R.C. No. 2024-27, 50 NJPER 290 (¶69 2023). ¶

3/ The New Jersey State Policeman’s Benevolent Association (State PBA) moved to file a brief as amicus curiae. Under our rules, the motion was granted as an intervention for the limited purpose of filing a brief. ¶

4/ Neither party filed exceptions to this finding and aspect of the order. ¶

5/ Freeman testified that he filed the charges as a rank-and- file member of the State PBA, not in his official capacity as Vice President. (3TR81-82). ¶

6/ The record does not specify the end date of the State PBA’s trusteeship of Local 334. ¶

7/ However, we note that Mendoza possessed the simultaneous statutory rights to “assist” in a labor organization and to file an unfair practice charge with this agency. In re MacCarthy (App. Div. 2026). Analogous NLRB authority also holds that “the Board and courts have found provisions requiring union members to exhaust internal union remedies to be unlawful only where they have been invoked to interfere with or punish an employee for resort to the Board” because “[a]ny coercion used to discourage...access to the Board is beyond the legitimate interests of a labor organization.” Int’ l Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emples., 364 N.L.R.B. 1271 (2026) ¶