Case Name: GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CHARGING PARTY-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1977-03-29
Citations: 149 N.J. Super. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CHARGING PARTY-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 352–358

Head Matter:
GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CHARGING PARTY-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 7, 1977
Decided March 29, 1977.
Before Judges Bischoff, Morgan and Furman.
Mr. Robert J. Hrebek argued the cause for Board of Education (Messrs. Murray, Meagher and G-ranello, attorneys).
Mr. James M. Blaney argued the cause for Education Association (Messrs. Starkey, White and Kelly, attorneys).
Mr. Sydney H. Lehmann argued the cause for Public Employment Relations Commission (Mr. David M. Wallace, General Counsel, Public Employment Relations Commission, on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Furman, J. S. C.,
Temporarily Assigned. Respondent Association filed unfair labor practice charges against appellant board with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) on September 2, 1975. An evidentiary hearing was waived upon a stipulation of facts. The parties reached a negotiating agreement for 1975-76 on April 6, 1976. PERC was so advised on April 13, 1976. The PERC order determining unfair labor practices, which is appealed from, was issued on April 28, 1976.
PERC concedes that the affirmative relief ordered by it was in fact met by the agreement of April 6, 1976. It seeks enforcement of its order to cease and desist from interference with or coercion of employees in the exercise of the right of collective negotiating, from refusal to negotiate collectively in good faith and from unilateral alteration of the terms and conditions of employment during collective negotiations. At oral argument counsel for PERC urged that the appeal was not moot because of the precedential effect of the cease and desist order, if enforced, as tending in another proceeding to show anti-union animus.
PERC jurisdiction to issue unfair labor practice cease and desist orders is to protect the statutory right of collective negotiating. At the time of its order under appeal there was no controversy before it, no pending unfair labor practice. In its brief appellant board argues: "PERC should have declined to rule on the issues presented and should have declared the matter moot by reason of a voluntary negotiated agreement between the parties." We agree.
Pursuant to N. J. 8. A. 34:13A-5.4(f) PEIiC filed with the Appellate Division a cross-application for enforcement of its cease and desist order. Because it adjudicates state as well as other governmental employment relations, it is represented not hy the Attorney General but by special counsel appointed under N. J. 8. A. 52:17A-13.
Its decision and order rendered three weeks following the agreement between the parties and its vigorous participation as an advocate on the appeal are without justification in its statutory authority. There was no reason to speculate that its order, if affirmed on appeal, would not have been complied with by appellant board.
Beversed with direction to vacate the order under appeal.