SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5456-16T4

SOMERSET COUNTY VOCATIONAL

AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL BOARD

OF EDUCATION,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN VINGARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

Argued October 11, 2018 – Decided 

Before Judges Simonelli, Whipple and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Somerset County, Docket No. C012015-17. 

Edward A. Cridge argued the cause for appellant (Mellk 

O'Neill, attorneys; Arnold M. Mellk, of counsel; 

Edward A. Cridge, on the brief).

Lisa M. Fittipaldi argued the cause for respondent 

(DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & 

Flaum, PC, attorneys; Lisa M. Fittipaldi and Robert P. 

Manetta, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 27, 2018
2

A-5456-16T4

PER CURIAM

Defendant, John Vingara, appeals from a July 21, 2017 order vacating an 

arbitration award and remanding the matter to a new arbitrator to determine 

whether defendant engaged in theft of goods and services, engaged in conduct 

unbecoming a teaching professional and neglected his professional duties. We 

affirm for the reasons expressed in Judge Margaret Goodzeit's comprehensive 

and well-reasoned decision issued with the order.

The evidence is set forth in detail in the judge's decision. A summary will 

suffice here. Defendant was employed as a Culinary Arts teacher by plaintiff, 

the Somerset County Vocational and Technical School Board, for over thirty

years. In June 2015, plaintiff became suspicious of defendant when the school 

business office received an invoice from their food supplier for items not needed 

during the summer. On August 10, 2015, the school's summer program reported 

food items missing. A school security guard, Virginia Fanelli, saw defendant 

on campus on August 10, 2015. Principal Diane Ziegler discussed the missing 

food and defendant's outside catering businesses, with Business Administrator 

Raelene Catterson. Plaintiff authorized an investigation.

On April 27, 2016, plaintiff brought tenure charges against defendant 

under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 for "(a) conduct unbecoming a teacher; (b) neglect of 
3

A-5456-16T4

duty; and (c) theft of goods and services." On June 21, 2016, after receiving 

defendant's answer to the charges, the Commissioner of Education assigned an 

arbitrator for the tenure charges hearing.

The arbitrator heard testimony from Catterson, Ziegler, Fanelli, 

Superintendent Christine Harttraft, and an accountant, Theresa Simonds, about 

the results of their investigation. The arbitrator was also presented with

documentary and video evidence from a security camera.

After three days of hearings on September 2, September 6, and October 7, 

2016, the arbitrator found plaintiff had failed to prove the charge of theft and 

determined failure to meet this burden constituted a failure to prove the 

remaining charges. On March 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint and 

Order to Show Cause in the Chancery Division, seeking to vacate the arbitrator's 

award. On July 21, 2017, Judge Goodzeit vacated the arbitrator's award and 

remanded the matter to a new arbitrator for further proceedings. This appeal 

followed.

We review the court's decision to vacate an arbitration award de novo. 

Minkowitz v. Israeli, 433 N.J. Super. 111, 136 (App. Div. 2013). Here, Judge

Goodzeit thoroughly reviewed the findings of the arbitrator and recognized such 

an award is only subject to vacation when justified under one of the four 
4

A-5456-16T4

statutory bases outlined in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8

1 or if it is contrary to public policy.

Borough of E. Rutherford v. E. Rutherford PBA Local 275, 213 N.J. 190, 202

(2013). The judge also recognized she could not substitute her own judgment 

for that of the arbitrator. Middletown Twp. PBA Local 124 v. Twp. of 

Middletown, 193 N.J. 1, 11 (2007).

An arbitrator's authority is limited by N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 and by the 

questions framed by the parties. Here, the charges against defendant were "(a) 

conduct unbecoming a teacher; (b) neglect of duty; and (c) theft of goods and 

 

1

 Under N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8:

The court shall vacate the award in any of the following cases:

a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or 

undue means;

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;

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.

When an award is vacated and the time within which the 

agreement required the award to be made has not expired, the 

court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the 

arbitrators.
5

A-5456-16T4

services." The judge emphasized conduct unbecoming a teacher may be based

on evidence of inappropriate conduct by a teaching professional, focusing on 

morale, efficiency, and public perception. No implicit rule need be violated for 

conduct to be unbecoming a teacher. Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 

228 N.J. 4, 13-14 (2017). Further, the court noted neglect of duty is an 

additional basis for discipline, and while a single instance may not be sufficient, 

numerous occurrences may amount to neglect of duty.

The judge found "the Arbitrator did not execute his powers to 

appropriately evaluate whether the claims against [defendant] rose to the level 

of conduct unbecoming a teaching professional and/or neglect of his duties." 

The judge noted defendant's presence on campus during off hours, despite 

previous warnings, and leaving before the end of the day as examples of conduct

the arbitrator did not consider as unbecoming a teacher or neglect of duty. 

Further, the court noted the arbitrator did not consider whether conducting 

personal business while on campus, receiving unauthorized deliveries for 

personal business, or lying about professional development days constituted

neglect of duty or conduct unbecoming a teacher. Accordingly, the judge

determined the arbitrator imperfectly executed his power by failing to evaluate 
6

A-5456-16T4

all claims and supporting evidence of neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming

a teaching professional.

Additionally, the court found the arbitrator's decision was the result of 

undue means, namely mistakes of law and fact and disregard of substantial 

credible evidence. "[U]nbecoming conduct 'need not be predicated upon the 

violation of any particular rule or regulation, but may be based merely upon the 

violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one 

who stands in the public eye . . . .'" Id. at 13-14 (quoting Karins v. City of Atl. 

City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover, 

although the matter was subject to consideration under a preponderance of the 

evidence standard, the arbitrator incorrectly found plaintiff did not establish 

evidence beyond any possible explanation, notwithstanding that defendant 

offered no alternative explanation for his conduct. Accordingly, because the 

award was not supported by substantial credible evidence and the arbitrator did 

not properly evaluate certain claims, Judge Goodzeit vacated the award and 

remanded to a new arbitrator. After conducting our own review of the record, 

we agree with her determination.
7

A-5456-16T4

Affirmed, the matter is remanded to a new arbitrator to determine whether 

defendant committed theft of goods and services, conduct unbecoming and/or 

neglect of duty and any appropriate penalty.