[brief] Pursuant to a legislative policy that seeks the prevention or prompt settlement of public-sector labor disputes, the Commission is charged with enforcing and implementing all the provisions of New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq.  In this matter, the Commission considered the meaning of the phrase, “[r]epresentatives designated or selected by public employees for the purposes of collective negotiation,” in Section 5.3 of the Act.  Broadly speaking, the Commission had to decide whether that phrase places any sort of upper limit on the size of the team that a duly-elected majority representative of public employees in an appropriate unit may bring to meetings wherein the majority representative and the public employer conduct negotiations over the terms and conditions of employment of unit members.  For the parties here, the Commission’s final agency decision considered whether Section 5.3 bars the [...] from engaging in a practice it defines as “open bargaining” through the use of “expanded teams” during contract negotiations.  More particularly, the Commission considered whether the Act precludes from negotiation sessions the presence of the [...]’s “Bargaining Council. ”  As it is open to all [...] members, the Bargaining Council’s presence during negotiations could result in very large groups in attendance.  In its comprehensive decision, the Commission acknowledged that the [...]’s use of its Bargaining Council in negotiations may be unusual, but found that neither the State Constitution nor the Act placed express limitations on the size of its negotiations team, which included only [...] members, not members of the public, other unions, or non-participant employee groups.  The Commission fully considered the totality of the circumstances as reflected in the jointly-stipulated record presented (including evidence that the parties successfully settled their prior contract despite the [...]’s use of its Bargaining Council in those negotiations).  The Commission’s final decision neither endorses nor discourages “open” collective negotiations as defined by the [...], and is fully cognizant and mindful of the [...]’s legitimate concerns that large numbers in a negotiation session could become problematic.  But the Commission found the [...]’s concerns had not yet materialized in a manner that would support a good faith refusal by the [...] to negotiate in the Bargaining Council’s presence.  The Commission applied its agency expertise in resolving this dispute (including through a detailed analysis of the relevant authorities), and reasonably found that the circumstances presented, although unusual, remain subject to well-established principles: that neither party may dictate or challenge the other’s choice of its negotiations representatives (including as to a specific number or identity of such representatives), absent evidence (not present here) of conflict of interest or ill-will, or evidence that a party’s choice of representatives jeopardizes safety or security.  The Commission sensibly urged both parties to exercise discretion and good faith in implementing large team meetings, and pointedly cautioned the [...] to remain open to reasonable restrictions on the deployment of its Bargaining Council in negotiations, as well as to ground rules that will reasonably maintain effective negotiations when large teams are present.  The Commission further stressed that its decision would not prevent or preclude the [...] from seeking recourse before [...] if the [...]’s continued use of its Bargaining Council in fact proves obstructive of good-faith negotiations.  To date, no such issues have been presented, while the [...] states that during the parties’ current round of negotiations it has been complying with the Commission’s Order.  In short (as more fully detailed, infra), the Commission’s decision was a proper application of its agency expertise, is entitled to deference, and should be affirmed on appeal.