Dunellen Board of Education v. Dunellen Education Ass'n

Citations: 64 N.J. 17; 311 A.2d 737; 1973 N.J. LEXIS 139; 85 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2131

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey; November 20, 1973; New Jersey; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Dunellen Board of Education initiated a complaint in the Chancery Division to prevent the Dunellen Education Association from pursuing arbitration regarding a grievance related to their 1971-72 agreement. The Public Employment Relations Commission was included as a nominal defendant. The Commissioner of Education intervened as a party plaintiff, while the New Jersey School Boards Association participated as amicus curiae. The Dunellen Education Association responded with an answer and counterclaim seeking dismissal of the complaint. The Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, dismissing the Board's complaint and imposing costs on the Board.

Both the Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education appealed to the Appellate Division, which was subsequently certified for review. The Board supervises K-12 education in its district, and the Association represents the teachers in negotiations. They had an agreement outlining salary schedules, extra-duty assignments, and grievance procedures, defining grievances as claims related to violations or interpretations of the agreement. Certain issues, including state board rules and non-tenure complaints, were excluded from this grievance process.

The grievance process had four levels, concluding with the option for arbitration if the Board's decision was unsatisfactory. Following the resignation of the Social Studies Chairman, the Board chose to consolidate the Social Studies and English Department Chairmanships into a Humanities position, appointing the English Chairman to that role. The agreement did not address chairmanship consolidations, only specifying additional duties and compensation for the Social Studies and English Chairmen.

The agreement contains a provision stating that Department Chairmen are to be assigned two preparation periods for departmental duties, which was complied with and is not contested. Following the consolidation of positions, the Association filed a grievance that was rejected by the Superintendent and the Board. The Association then sought arbitration, prompting the Board to file a complaint in Chancery Division to restrain arbitration. The Board argued that the agreement did not limit its authority to consolidate department chairmanships and that any interpretation suggesting otherwise would be an illegal delegation of its statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the Board asserted that the issue fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education.

The Commissioner claimed primary jurisdiction over whether the controversy arose under school laws, suggesting that arbitration should be paused until a determination was made. In contrast, an amicus curiae contended that the question of arbitrability should be decided by the courts, and that referral to the Commissioner should only occur in rare cases. The Education Association maintained that the Commissioner should play no role and that arbitration should proceed. The Chancery Division sided with the Education Association, stating the dispute stemmed from the contract and did not require the Commissioner's expertise.

During oral arguments, it was noted that after the 1971-72 school year, the Board reverted to separate chairmanships, rendering the matter potentially moot; however, all parties sought judicial insight on broader issues for future guidance. The court decided to address the merits of the case, referencing New Jersey's constitutional mandate for a "thorough and efficient" public school system and the legislative framework granting local school boards management authority, while also acknowledging the supervisory role of the State Board of Education and the Commissioner. The Commissioner is empowered to resolve controversies arising under school laws, with the court reaffirming the extensive scope of the Commissioner’s authority in previous decisions.

Local school boards are granted management powers by the Legislature, including the authority to employ, promote, transfer, and dismiss staff, along with adopting related rules, all in accordance with specific statutory provisions. These boards operate under public responsibilities distinct from private employers and cannot relinquish these duties or negotiate them away. Public employees, unlike their private sector counterparts, are prohibited from striking, although they have the constitutional right to organize and express grievances. The 1947 Constitution allows public employees to present grievances through chosen representatives. 

In 1968, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Employer-Employee Relations Act, which allows a majority representative of public employees to negotiate on their behalf with public employers over grievances and employment terms. While the Act requires written agreements for terms and conditions of employment, it does not define "terms and conditions" or outline what is negotiable. It also affirms that existing statutes remain in effect, underscoring that the education law must be upheld without undermining the Employer-Employee Relations Act. The Legislature intended for local boards to negotiate in good faith with employee representatives on matters affecting employees' work and welfare, provided it does not significantly disrupt management's educational responsibilities.

The distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable terms in employment conditions is often unclear, as highlighted by the Nebraska Supreme Court in *School District of Seward Education Association v. School District of Seward*. Teacher organizations typically interpret "conditions of employment" broadly, while educational boards seek to limit this interpretation to maintain management rights. The court determined that boards should not negotiate matters primarily related to educational policy or management prerogatives. Specifically, areas such as hiring, maintaining order, scheduling work, transfers, extracurricular activities, curriculum decisions, class size, and specialist employment are exclusively management prerogatives.

In *Joint School District No. 8 v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Bd.*, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that while certain school calendar items are dictated by statute and cannot be negotiated, the remaining aspects are subject to compulsory discussion. The board must consider teachers' suggestions but retains discretion over the final decision. The refusal to reach an agreement can lead to a fact-finding procedure, which, while not binding, can influence public opinion and legislative processes.

In contrast, the Connecticut Supreme Court in *West Hartford Education Association v. De Courcy* concluded that the state legislature had excluded the school calendar from mandatory negotiation. The court acknowledged that the terms "conditions of employment" and "educational policy" are not strictly separate, as educational decisions often affect employment conditions. Ultimately, courts are tasked with determining the negotiability of specific issues on a case-by-case basis.

The court addressed the obligations of a board in negotiating mandatory subjects, emphasizing that a board acting in good faith does not breach its duty by choosing not to make a counter-proposal or concession. The court referenced the case of State College Ed. Ass’n v. Pennsylvania Labor Rel. Bd., which determined that the school calendar is not a mandatory subject for negotiation under Pennsylvania law, as it falls under 'inherent managerial policy' rather than 'terms and conditions of employment.' Additionally, the New York Court of Appeals in Board of Education v. Associated Teachers interpreted the Taylor Law broadly, mandating good faith negotiations regarding employment terms, including tuition reimbursement and grievance procedures for dismissed tenure teachers, which could exclude proceedings before the Commissioner of Education.

However, the court cautioned against applying a similar interpretation in New Jersey, where specific laws govern tenure teacher dismissals and grant the Commissioner authority over such controversies. The New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act includes a clause stating that it does not annul or modify existing statutes, indicating a legislative intent to maintain the existing education law framework. Consequently, the court refrained from interpreting provisions allowing for grievance procedures and binding arbitration as replacing the Commissioner's required hearings for teacher dismissals. The case at hand was not about individual teacher dismissals but rather about the Dunellen Board's decision to consolidate departmental leadership without adversely affecting any individual teacher.

A vacancy in the Chairmanship of the Social Studies Department led to the appointment of the English Department Chairman as Humanities Chairman, facilitating potential coordination between the two departments to enhance educational productivity through joint activities. This decision aligns with contemporary inter-disciplinary educational approaches and is seen as a matter of educational policy, minimally affecting the 'terms and conditions of employment' as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. The Board holds statutory responsibility for educational determinations under various laws (e.g., N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1, 18A:16-1), while the Commissioner supervises these determinations and addresses related disputes (N.J.S.A. 18A:4-23, 18A:4-25). The consolidation of chairmanships is regarded as a decision within management's exclusive prerogatives. Even in states with broader negotiability standards, the creation or termination of educational positions that do not directly affect individuals remains a Board prerogative. Unlike other states that specify negotiable subjects, New Jersey has not defined these topics, leaving the judiciary to determine what constitutes terms and conditions of employment. The Legislature has also ensured that existing educational statutes remain unaffected by any broader interpretations of negotiability.

The Dunellen Board lacked the legal authority to submit the decision to consolidate the Chairmanships of the Social Studies and English Departments into a Humanities Chairmanship to binding arbitration. Instead, the issue should have been presented to the Commissioner of Education as a dispute under school laws. The Chancery Division erred by dismissing the Board's action and granting summary judgment for the Education Association. While the decision regarding consolidation was determined not to be a proper subject for arbitration or mandatory negotiation under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, the Board would have benefited from voluntarily discussing the matter with teacher representatives to promote peaceful relations. Historically, public employees had the right to voice their proposals and grievances, a right that was expanded by New Jersey's Employer-Employee Relations Act, which created areas for mandatory negotiation. Although the Board retains exclusive authority to make educational policy decisions, engaging in timely discussions with teachers is advisable for fostering positive labor relations. The ruling is reversed, with a majority in favor of the reversal.