SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSE Y APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5456

- 16T4
SOMERSET COUNTY VO CATIONAL AND TECH NICAL 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. C

0 12015

- 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, Le hrer & 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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, 20182 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 d efendant 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 t eacher by plaintiff, the Somerset County Vocational and Technical School Board , for over thirty years. I n 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 scho ol 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 invest igation. 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 of3 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 f or 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, t he 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 a rbitrato r's

a ward. On July 21, 2017 , Judge Goodzeit vacated the a rbitrator's award and
remanded the matter to a new arbitr ator for further proceedings. This appeal
follow ed.
We review the court's decision to vacate an arbitration award de novo.
Minkowitz v. Isr aeli , 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 four4 A

- 5456

- 16T4

statutory bas e s 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 judgme nt
for that of the arbitrator. Middletown Twp. PBA Local 124 v. Twp. of
Middletown , 193 N.J. 1, 11 (2007).
An a rbitrator'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 dut y; and (c) t heft 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. N o implicit rule need be viola ted for
conduct t o 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 i s 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 l evel of conduct unbecoming a teaching professional an d/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 a rbitrator did n ot consider as unbecoming a teacher or neglect of duty. Further, the court noted the a rbitrator did not consider whether conducting personal business while on campus, receiving unauthorized deliveries for personal business, or lying about professional dev elopment days constitute d neglect of duty or c onduct unbecoming a teacher. Accordingly, the judge
determined the arbitrator imperfectly executed his power by failing to evaluate6 A

- 5456

- 16T4

all claims and supporting evidence of neglect of duty and conduct unbec oming a teaching professional. Additionally, the court found the a rbitrator'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 stand s 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 consider ation under a preponderance of the
evidence standard , the arbitrator incorrectly found p laintiff did not establish evidence beyond any possible explanati on , 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 Goodze i t vacated th e 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 un becoming and / or neglect of duty and any appropriate penalty.