SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0743-23 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PBA LOCAL 29, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

and 

TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, 

 Respondent-Respondent. 

_____________________________

Argued April 9, 2024 – Decided May 15, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners and Torregrossa-O'Connor. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment 

Relations Commission, PERC No. 2024-8. 

Brittany Rose Naimoli argued the cause for appellant 

(Trimboli & Prusinowski, LLC, attorneys; James 

Prusinowski and Brittany Rose Naimoli, on the briefs).

Craig B. Novak argued the cause for respondent 

Township of Irvington (Taylor Law Group, LLC, 

attorneys; Craig B. Novak, of counsel and on the brief). 

John Andrew Boppert, Deputy General Counsel, argued

the cause for respondent New Jersey Public 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-0743-23

Employment Relations Commission (Christine 

Lucarelli, General Counsel, attorney; John Andrew 

Boppert, on the statement in lieu of brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 In accordance with Article XXII, § 17 [hereinafter Section 17] of its 

collective negotiations agreement with the Irvington PBA Local 29, the 

Township of Irvington deducted approximately $3,500 from each final paycheck 

of seven PBA members (grievants) to recoup training costs (academy training, 

uniforms, and equipment) the Township expended on them because they 

resigned within five years after their employment began.1 In response, the PBA 

filed for binding grievance arbitration, claiming "the [T]ownship . . . has 

1

 Section 17 provides in pertinent part: 

The parties agree that any officer hired on or after 

October 1, 2017 shall be required to remain employed 

with the Township of Irvington as a Police Officer for 

a period of no less than five (5) full years. Failure to 

be employed by the Township upon the completion of 

the 365th day in the 5th year of employment shall result 

in the officer being required to return all training fees 

paid on behalf of the employee. Such fees include, but 

are not limited to, the academy, workshops and other 

such trainings, and the officer shall be required to 

reimburse the Township for all payments made to the

officer and/or on the officer's behalf for uniforms and 

equipment. 
3 A-0743-23

improperly and unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of employment by 

violating" Section 17. 

Prior to the arbitration hearing, the PBA filed a scope of negotiations 

petition with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) 

to restrain arbitration. PBA requested PERC declare Section 17 preempted by 

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178, which provides that a county or municipality can be 

reimbursed for training costs of a resigning law enforcement officer by the 

officer's new county or municipal law enforcement agency under certain 

circumstances.2 PBA contended the statute is the "exclusive remedy" for 

2

 N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178 provides in relevant part: 

a. Whenever a person who resigned as a member of a 

county or municipal law enforcement agency is 

appointed to another county or municipal law 

enforcement agency, . . . within 120 days of resignation, 

and that person held a probationary appointment at the 

time of resignation or held a permanent appointment for 

30 days or less prior to resignation, the county or

municipal law enforcement agency, . . . is liable to the 

former county or municipal employer, as appropriate, 

for the total certified costs incurred by the former 

employer in the examination, hiring, and training of the 

person. 

b. Whenever a person who resigned as a member of a 

county or municipal law enforcement agency is 

appointed to another county or municipal law 
4 A-0743-23

training costs reimbursement when a law enforcement officer leaves 

employment. 

PERC denied PBA's petition to restrain binding arbitration. PERC first 

found Section 17 was properly bargained by the Township and the PBA 

incorrectly relied on New Jersey Transit Authority v. New Jersey Transit PBA, 

Local 304, which held an employer's "requirement that police recruits agree to 

repay training costs if they leave employment within two years" is mandatorily 

negotiable. 314 N.J. Super. 129, 132, 138-39 (App. Div. 1998). Next, PERC 

determined Section 17 was not preempted by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178. PERC 

reasoned "the statute provides no means for reimbursement when an officer 

resigns after two years and/or is not re-hired by another law enforcement 

agency," and "is . . . silent as to whether reimbursement is limited solely to the 

conditions specified in the statute." PERC also stressed there is no legislative 

history or case law providing that "the statute . . . exclusively fixes the terms of 

enforcement agency, . . . within 120 days of resignation, 

and that person, at the time of resignation held a 

permanent appointment for more than 30 days but less 

than two years, the county or municipal law 

enforcement agency, . . . is liable to the former county 

or municipal employer, as appropriate, for one-half of 

the total certified costs incurred by the former employer 

in the examination, hiring and training of that person. 
5 A-0743-23

training-cost reimbursement expressly, specifically and comprehensively, and 

leaves employers with no discretion to negotiate reimbursement terms that are 

not expressly covered by the law."3 PERC also questioned whether the statute 

applies to the situation at hand because "the record does not reflect if any of the 

grievants were appointed to another law enforcement agency within 120 days of 

resigning from their Township positions" and "only one of the grievants (who 

resigned after nine months of service with the Township) would fall within 

[N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178's] length of service parameters." PERC did not consider 

the PBA's claim mentioned in its petition's "Summary of the Case" that the 

Township's payroll deductions violated New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law, 

N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a41, and related regulations because the PBA did not 

provide legal argument to support its position. Lastly, PERC rejected PBA's 

3

 In a footnote, PERC stated: 

For the same reasons, we are not persuaded by the 

PBA's argument that today['s] negotiations over the

training-cost reimbursement provision in New Jersey

Transit, [314 N.J. Super at 138], would be preempted 

by N.J.S.A. 27:25-15.1b, a law enacted in 2021 that

established training-cost reimbursement parameters 

regarding N.J. Transit police officers identical to those 

applicable to counties and municipalities under 

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178. 
6 A-0743-23

claim that Section 17 constitutes a penalty "not reasonably related to the actual 

costs or harm incurred by the Township" because it goes "to the merits of the 

grievance, . . . is outside of our scope of negotiations jurisdiction[,][Ridgefield 

Park Educ. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 78 N.J. 144, 154 (1978)],"

and thus "may be raised to the arbitrator." 

 Before us, the PBA reiterates the arguments PERC rejected. Because 

PERC's decision turned on the interpretation of a statute outside the New Jersey 

Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -29, –– whether 

Section 17 was preempted by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178 –– our review is de novo. In 

re Camden Cnty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15, 23 (App. Div. 2007). That 

said, we do not take issue with PERC's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-178 

that it does not preempt Section 17; therefore, making the Section 17's allowance 

of training costs recoupment mandatorily negotiable and subject to binding 

grievance arbitration. In addition, we agree with PERC that the PBA's challenge 

to the amount of training costs recouped from the grievants is an issue to be 

resolved by the arbitrator. Finally, we decline to consider PBA's contention that 

the payroll deductions violated the Wage and Hour Law and related regulations 

because it was not properly presented before PERC and therefore not 

considered. See Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 227 (2014) ("[D]eclin[ing] to 
7 A-0743-23

consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an 

opportunity for such a presentation is available unless the questions so raised on 

appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public 

interest." (quoting State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009))); see also Noye v. 

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 238 N.J. Super. 430, 432 n.2 (App. Div. 1990) 

(concluding an issue not argued in a brief is deemed abandoned). In sum, 

PERC's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and will be left 

to stand. See City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n, 

154 N.J. 555, 568 (1998). 

 To the extent we have not addressed any arguments raised by the PBA, 

they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed.