NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL

OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0413-15T4

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondent/Cross-Appellant,

and

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE

91,

Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

_________________________________

Argued May 16, 2017 - Decided 

Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Mayer. 

On appeal from the Public Employment Relations 

Commission, P.E.R.C. No. 2016-11.

Frank M. Crivelli argued the cause for 

appellant/cross-respondent Fratnernal Order 

of Police Lodge 91 (Crivelli & Barbati, 

attorneys; Mr. Crivelli, on the brief).

James J. Gillespie argued the cause for 

respondent/cross-appellant State of New 

Jersey (Jackson Lewis, attorneys; Jeffrey J. 

Corradino, of counsel; Mr. Gillespie, on the 

brief).

Frank C. Kanther, Deputy General Counsel, 

argued the cause for respondent New Jersey 

Public Employment Relations Commission (Robin 

T. McMahon, General Counsel, attorney; Mr. 

Kanther, on the brief).

June 26, 2017

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

June 26, 2017

APPELLATE DIVISION
2 A-0413-15T4

The opinion of the court was delivered by

REISNER, P.J.A.D.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 91 (FOP) appeals, and the 

State cross-appeals, from a September 3, 2015 final decision of 

the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) adopting, in 

pertinent part, a lengthy and meticulously detailed interest 

arbitration award deciding the terms of an initial collective 

negotiations agreement (CNA) between the Division of Criminal 

Justice (DCJ) and a newly certified unit representing DCJ

investigators. The FOP contends that PERC erred as a matter of 

law in its February 13, 2015 interlocutory decision directing the 

arbitrator to apply the two percent statutory cap on salary 

increases, set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7.1 The State contends 

that PERC erred in confirming the award with respect to certain 

non-salary issues, including an education reimbursement, paid time 

off to attend certain educational classes, a $300 clothing 

allowance, and arbitration of minor discipline.2

 

1 That decision did not become ripe for an appeal as of right until 

PERC issued its final decision. FOP previously filed a motion for 

leave to appeal, which we denied. 

2 Before oral argument of the appeal, the State withdrew an 

additional issue concerning the manner in which the arbitrator 

implemented the two percent cap. 
3 A-0413-15T4

On the cross-appeal, we conclude that PERC's decision as to 

the non-salary issues is not arbitrary and capricious, see In re 

State, 443 N.J. Super. 380, 384-86 (App. Div.), certif. denied,

225 N.J. 221 (2016), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the 

agency's September 23, 2015 decision. The State's arguments are 

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). 

We affirm on the FOP's appeal, substantially for the reasons 

stated in the agency's February 13, 2015 decision. We owe 

deference to PERC's reasonable interpretation of its enabling 

statute, and we find no basis to depart from that deference here. 

See In re Camden Cty. Prosecutor, 394 N.J. Super. 15, 23 (App. 

Div. 2007). We agree with PERC that the two percent cap applies 

where, as here, a newly certified bargaining unit is negotiating 

its first CNA with the public employer. We reject the FOP's 

argument, because read as a whole and construed in light of its 

purposes, the Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform 

Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14 to -16.9, both entitles a newly certified 

unit to demand interest arbitration and subjects that arbitration 

process to the two percent cap.3 

 

3 Unless further extended by the Legislature, the two percent cap 

will expire at the end of 2017 as set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:13A16.9. See L. 2014, c. 11, § 4. As a result, although this case 
4 A-0413-15T4

Read literally, the Act does not permit interest arbitration 

for newly certified bargaining units or subject such arbitrations 

to the cap. Both N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(b)(2), requiring interest 

arbitration, and the section setting forth the two percent cap, 

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7(b), apply by their terms to situations in 

which an existing CNA is expiring. However, a literal reading of 

the Act would produce absurd results, contrary to its purpose. 

See Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209-11 (2014). 

[W]here a statute or ordinance does not 

expressly address a specific situation, the 

court will interpret it "consonant with the 

probable intent of the draftsman 'had he 

anticipated the matter at hand.'" In that 

regard, "[i]t is axiomatic that a statute will 

not be construed to lead to absurd results." 

[Twp. of Pennsauken v. Schad, 160 N.J. 156, 

170 (1999) (citations omitted).] 

One of the Act's central goals is to resolve law enforcement 

labor disputes through interest arbitration. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A14(a); In re State, 114 N.J. 316, 326 (1989). That requirement 

"shall be liberally construed." N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14(d). Applying 

the statute to newly certified bargaining units, negotiating their 

first CNAs, serves that purpose. Another important purpose of the 

Act is to limit the economic burden on public employers and 

 

presents a novel issue, we acknowledge that our decision may have 

limited application. 
5 A-0413-15T4

preserve the public fisc. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.8; Assembly Law 

and Pub. Safety Comm., Statement to Assembly Comm. Substitute for 

A. 3393, Dec. 9, 2010. Therefore, it serves the economic policies 

expressed in the Act to apply the two percent salary cap uniformly, 

whether an interest arbitration concerns an expiring CNA or the 

negotiation of a unit's first CNA. 

Accordingly, we agree with PERC that the FOP cannot obtain 

the Act's benefits without also accepting its burdens. 

Interpreting the Act to give newly certified bargaining units the 

benefit of interest arbitration without the financial limit of the 

two percent cap would produce a skewed result, at odds with the 

Legislature's intent in enacting the salary cap provision. 

Affirmed.