SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4367-17T2

MIDDLESEX EDUCATION

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MIDDLESEX BOARD OF

EDUCATION,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________

Argued May 30, 2019 – Decided June 25, 2019

Before Judges Koblitz, Currier and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. 

C-000030-18.

David J. DeFillippo argued the cause for appellant 

(Detzky, Hunter & DeFillippo, LLC, attorneys; David 

J. DeFillippo, of counsel and on the briefs).

Anthony P. Sciarrillo argued the cause for respondent 

(Sciarrillo, Cornell, Merlino, McKeever & Osborne, 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4367-17T2

LLC, attorneys; Anthony P. Sciarrillo, of counsel and 

on the brief; Paul E. Griggs, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Middlesex Education Association (Association) appeals from a 

May 4, 2018 order denying its order to show cause (OTSC) to vacate a December 

8, 2017 arbitration award and dismissing its complaint. We affirm.

The Association submitted two grievances, claiming respondent

Middlesex Board of Education (Board) assigned some teachers to excessive 

duties and posts during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years in violation 

of their collective negotiations agreement (CNA). The Association filed a 

demand for arbitration with the New Jersey Public Relations Commission 

(PERC) regarding the grievances. The issue presented to the arbitrator was 

whether the Board assigned duties in excess of the CNA for the 2015-2016 and 

2016-2017 school years. 

Three provisions in the applicable CNA are pertinent to this appeal. The 

first is Section 3.3.6(c) of the CNA, which sets forth the scope of arbitration:

The arbitrator shall be limited to the issues submitted 

and will not add to or subtract from or modify the terms 

of the [CNA]. The arbitrator shall be without power or 

authority to make any decision contrary to or 

inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way 

the terms of [the CNA] or applicable law or rules or 

regulations having the force or effect of law. The 
3

A-4367-17T2

arbitrator's decision shall not usurp the functions or 

powers of the Board as provided by statute or be 

inconsistent with the provisions of [the CNA].

The second provision relevant to this appeal is Section 6.1.2(e) of the 

CNA. This section provides that "[p]reschool to Grade 5 teachers and Grade 6-

12 teachers who teach six (6) periods per day will be assigned no more than two 

(2) duties per week."

The third provision implicated in this appeal is Section 6.1.1(c) of the 

CNA. This section provides:

Teachers are required to be in their respective 

classrooms or at their assigned posts fifteen (15) 

minutes before the opening of the school day, and at 

least five (5) minutes before the opening of the 

afternoon session, and shall remain in their classrooms 

thirty (30) minutes after the close of the students' day, 

except if the teacher is on a duty assignment. 

The CNA expressly limits teachers with full teaching loads to the 

assignment of no more than two duties per week. There is no provision in the 

CNA limiting the number of posts per week that may be assigned to a teacher.

Duty assignments are described as supervisory tasks or functions outside 

of the classroom, such as "escorting, monitoring, supervising and assisting 

students." Duties are usually during periods designated for "recess, in-school 
4

A-4367-17T2

suspension, and lunch." The duration of a duty assignment is typically thirty to 

forty minutes. 

Post assignments are designated locations where teachers are dispatched 

to oversee students arriving and departing from school, or travelling the 

hallways between classes and lunch periods. Post assignments are ten to twenty 

minutes in duration. 

During the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator heard testimony from the 

Association's witnesses, two school principals, and the Board's Superintendent. 

The Association also presented charts of teachers who taught six class periods 

per day who also had duty or post assignments. Based on these charts, the 

Association claimed teachers were improperly assigned to more than the CNA's 

limit of two duties per week.

The witnesses from the Board explained the differences between duties 

and posts. According to the Board's witnesses, historically, teachers are 

assigned to both duties and posts, although not all teachers have had both duties 

and posts. One principal who testified for the Board described a post as a 

location. He further explained a duty imposes greater responsibility on a teacher 

than a post. The same principal also testified posts are no more than fifteen 

minutes in length, while duties range from twenty-six to forty minutes in length. 
5

A-4367-17T2

The other principal who testified for the Board explained that the 

responsibilities associated with posts are less than those attendant to duties. He 

noted posts last ten minutes while duties last thirty minutes. 

According to the testimony from the Board's Superintendent, a post is 

defined as a location. While posts are fifteen minutes or less in duration, the 

Superintendent described duties as full-class periods that include recess, lunch, 

and in-school suspension. The Superintendent noted teachers who were not 

assigned homeroom classes were assigned posts. 

After closing the record, in a December 8, 2017 written decision, the 

arbitrator determined the CNA failed to specify whether the limitation imposed 

on duty assignments also applied to post assignments and therefore the CNA

was ambiguous. Based on finding an ambiguity in the CNA, the arbitrator 

analyzed the parties' past conduct to define duties and posts. 

The arbitrator compared posts and duties, noting duties involved more 

"record-keeping . . . and require[d] teachers to circulate among students to better 

monitor them, as in recess and lunch duty." She also found the parties 

"consistently interpreted duty assignments to not include posts . . . ." She 

explained the distinction "makes sense" because teachers without homeroom 

assignments are assigned to posts, and both assignments have the same ten to 
6

A-4367-17T2

fifteen minute duration. Moreover, because teachers given duty assignments 

receive additional compensation, the arbitrator reasoned that if teachers assigned 

to posts were given additional compensation similar to duty assignments, there 

would be a "compensation inequity[,]" giving certain teachers a benefit not 

bargained for in the CNA. 

The arbitrator concluded the parties had a "long-standing practice" of 

interpreting duties separately from posts. Since 1998, the language in the CNA 

regarding posts has remained the same. The Association signed successive

CNAs after 1998 without requesting inclusion of a definition for posts. Based 

on the testimony and the parties' past practice, the arbitrator found the 

Association failed to prove the Board's assignment of teachers to duties and 

posts violated the CNA. 

On February 22, 2018, the Association filed an OTSC and verified

complaint in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, seeking to vacate the 

arbitration award. The Association argued the award was procured by undue 

means. In addition, the Association asserted the arbitrator "imperfectly 

execut[ed]" her authority contrary to N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8. 

The judge heard argument on the OTSC. The judge explained the 

Association failed to satisfy the statutory grounds for vacating the arbitration 
7

A-4367-17T2

award under N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8. In upholding the arbitrator's decision, the judge 

found "the arbitrator's ultimate conclusion must be maintained as it was not 

unfair or an unreasonable interpretation, and . . . the arbitrator's interpretation 

of the [CNA] more than satisfies the reasonably debatable standard . . . ." An 

order memorializing the judge's oral decision was entered on May 4, 2018.

On appeal, the Association argues the arbitrator's award was not 

reasonably debatable and was procured by undue means. In addition, the 

Association contends the CNA is unambiguous and the arbitrator improperly 

relied on the parties' past conduct to conclude duties and posts were functionally 

different. 

We review a trial court's decision on a motion to vacate an arbitration 

award de novo. See Yarborough v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 

455 N.J. Super. 136, 139 (App. Div. 2018) (citing Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J. 

Super. 111, 136 (App. Div. 2013)). However, "[j]udicial review of an arbitration 

award is very limited." Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 11 

(2017) (quoting Linden Bd. of Educ. v. Linden Educ. Ass'n ex rel. Mizichko, 

202 N.J. 268, 276 (2010)). "The public policy of this State favors arbitration as 

a means of settling disputes that otherwise would be litigated in a court." Badiali 

v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Group, 220 N.J. 544, 556 (2015) (citing Cty. Coll. of Morris 
8

A-4367-17T2

Staff Ass'n v. Cty. Coll. of Morris, 100 N.J. 383, 390 (1985)). "[T]o ensure 

finality, as well as to secure arbitration's speedy and inexpensive nature, there 

exists a strong preference for judicial confirmation of arbitration awards." 

Borough of E. Rutherford v. E. Rutherford PBA Local 275, 213 N.J. 190, 201 

(2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Middletown Twp., PBA Local 124 v. 

Twp. of Middletown, 193 N.J. 1,10 (2007)). 

We apply "an extremely deferential review when a party to a collective 

bargaining agreement has sought to vacate an arbitrator's award." Policemen's 

Benevolent Ass'n, Local No. 11 v. City of Trenton, 205 N.J. 422, 428 (2011). 

"In the public sector, an arbitrator's award will be confirmed 'so long as the 

award is reasonably debatable.'" Linden Bd. of Educ., 202 N.J. at 276 (quoting 

Middletown Twp. PBA Local 124, 193 N.J. at 11). An award is "reasonably 

debatable" if it is "justifiable" or "fully supportable in the record." Policemen's 

Benevolent Ass'n, 205 N.J. at 431 (quoting Kearny PBA Local No. 21 v. Town 

of Kearny, 81 N.J. 208, 223-24 (1979)). 

N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 sets forth the grounds for vacating an arbitration award. 

A court must vacate an arbitration award: 

a. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud 

or undue means;
9

A-4367-17T2

b. Where there was either evident partiality or 

corruption in the arbitrators, or any thereof;

c. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in 

refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause 

being shown therefor, or in refusing to hear evidence, 

pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any 

other misbehaviors prejudicial to the rights of any

party; [or]

d. Where the arbitrators exceeded or so imperfectly 

executed their powers that a mutual, final and definite 

award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

[N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.]

The Association contends the arbitration award should be vacated in accordance 

with N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 (a) and (d). 

"'[U]ndue means' ordinarily encompasses a situation in which the 

arbitrator has made an acknowledged mistake of fact or law or a mistake that is 

apparent on the face of the record." Borough of E. Rutherford, 213 N.J. at 203

(alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Office of Emp. Relations v. Commc'ns

Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 154 N.J. 98, 111 (1998)). 

An arbitrator exceeds her authority where she ignores "the clear and 

unambiguous language of the agreement . . . ." City Ass'n of Supervisors & 

Adm'rs v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 311 N.J. Super. 300, 312 

(App. Div. 1998). It is fundamental that, "an arbitrator may not disregard the 
10 A-4367-17T2

terms of the parties' agreement, nor may he rewrite the contract for the parties." 

Cty. Coll. of Morris, 100 N.J. at 391 (citation omitted). Moreover, "the 

arbitrator may not contradict the express language of the contract . . . ." Linden 

Bd. of Educ., 202 N.J. at 276. 

"Although arbitrators may not look beyond the four corners of a contract 

to alter unambiguous language, where a term is not defined, it may be necessary 

for an 'arbitrator to fill in the gap and give meaning to that term.'" Policemen's 

Benevolent Ass'n, 205 N.J. at 430 (quoting Linden Bd. of Educ., 202 N.J. at 

277). If contract terms are unspecific or vague, "extrinsic evidence may be used 

to shed light on the mutual understanding of the parties." Hall v. Bd. of Educ.

of Twp. of Jefferson, 125 N.J. 299, 305 (1991). "The past practice of the 

contracting parties is entitled to 'great weight' in determining the meaning of 

ambiguous or doubtful contractual terms." Id. at 306 (citing Kennedy v. 

Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 16 N.J. 280, 294 (1954)). 

Although the arbitrator is not free to contradict the express language of a 

contract, "an arbitrator may 'weav[e] together' all those provisions that bear on 

the relevant question in coming to a final conclusion." Policemen's Benevolent 

Ass'n, 205 N.J. at 430 (alteration in original) (quoting N.J. Transit Bus 

Operations, Inc. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 187 N.J. at 546, 555 (2006)). 
11 A-4367-17T2

"[S]o long as the contract, as a whole, supports the arbitrator's interpretation, 

the award will be upheld." Ibid.

The parties disputed whether duties and posts were interchangeable terms. 

Because those terms were not defined in the CNA, the arbitrator had to examine

the agreement as a whole and look to the parties' prior conduct to ascertain the 

meaning of the two terms. Nothing in the language of the CNA suggests duties 

and posts are interchangeable. The duration of time for a post assignment differs 

from the time allocated for a duty assignment. Duty assignments also impose 

greater responsibilities on a teacher compared to post assignments. Further, if 

duties and posts were indistinguishable, teachers would have to be compensated 

for post assignments and financial remuneration for post assignments is not 

contemplated in the CNA. The arbitrator's decision, finding the terms to be

separate and distinct, was based on testimony from school officials and the past 

conduct of the parties. Thus, the arbitrator's decision is justifiable and fully 

supported by the record. 

We are satisfied the arbitrator did not exceed her authority because the 

award did not add a new term to the CNA. The arbitrator adopted a definition 

of post, based on the past conduct of the parties, which was reasonably 

debatable. The arbitrator's award was legally sufficient and fully supported by 
12 A-4367-17T2

the evidence in the record. Thus, we discern no reason to disturb the trial court's 

ruling affirming the arbitrator's award.

Affirmed.