Opinion ID: 2325323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: scope of negotiability

Text: Public employees in New Jersey have a constitutional right to organize and present grievances and proposals to public employers through representatives of their own choosing. N.J.Const. (1947), Art. I, par. 19. The parameters of collective negotiations about such proposals were established in 1968 by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -21, and later by judicial decisions. The central issue in a scope of negotiations determination is whether or not a particular subject matter is negotiable. This depends on careful consideration of the legitimate interests of the public employer and the public employees. The process of balancing those competing interests is constrained by the policy goals underlying relevant statutes and by the Constitution. The Legislature has recognized that, like private employees, public employees have a legitimate interest in engaging in collective negotiations about issues that affect terms and conditions of employment. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. However, the scope of negotiations in the public sector is more limited than in the private sector. [7] This is so because the employer in the public sector is government, which has special responsibilities to the public not shared by private employers. [8] What distinguishes the State from private employers is the unique responsibility to make and implement public policy. In the Matter of Paterson Police PBA Local No. 1 v. Paterson, 87 N.J. 78, 86 (1981); State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. 54, 67 (1978). Matters of public policy are properly decided, not by negotiation and arbitration, but by the political process. This involves the panoply of democratic institutions and practices, including public debate, lobbying, voting, legislation and administration. We have stated that the very foundation of representative democracy would be endangered if decisions on significant matters of governmental policy were left to the process of collective negotiations ... Our democratic system demands that governmental bodies retain their accountability to the citizenry. [ Ridgefield Park Ed. Ass'n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Ed., 78 N.J. 144, 163 (1978)] We have therefore divided subjects of public employment negotiation into two categories: mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment and non-negotiable matters of governmental policy. Id. at 162. The role of the courts in a scope of negotiations case is to determine, in light of the competing interests of the State and its employees, whether an issue is appropriately decided by the political process or by collective negotiations. In making this sensitive determination, the mere invocation of abstract categories like terms and conditions of employment and managerial prerogatives is not helpful. [9] To determine whether a subject is negotiable, the Court must balance the competing interests by considering the extent to which collective negotiations will impair the determination of governmental policy. Our opinions on public employment have established a three-part test for scope of negotiations determinations. [10] First, a subject is negotiable only if it intimately and directly affect[s] the work and welfare of public employees.... In re Paterson Police PBA, 87 N.J. at 86; Bd. of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, 81 N.J. at 591; State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 67. The prime examples of subjects that fall within this category are rates of pay and working hours. Bd. of Ed. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Ed. Ass'n, 81 N.J. at 589. Any subject which does not satisfy this part of the test is not negotiable. Second, an item is not negotiable if it has been preempted by statute or regulation. If the Legislature establishes a specific term or condition of employment that leaves no room for discretionary action, then negotiation on that term is fully preempted. If the statute sets a minimum or maximum term or condition, then negotiation may be confined within the parameters established by these limits. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 80-82; N.J.S.A. 34:13A-8.1. However, the mere existence of a statute or regulation relating to a given term or condition of employment does not automatically preclude negotiations. Negotiation is preempted only if the statutory or regulatory provisions ... speak in the imperative and leave nothing to the discretion of the public employer. State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 80. Third, a topic that affects the work and welfare of public employees is negotiable only if it is a matter on which negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the exercise of inherent management prerogatives pertaining to the determination of governmental policy. In re Paterson Police PBA, 87 N.J. at 86; Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. at 591; State v. State Supervisory Employees Ass'n, 78 N.J. at 67 (emphasis added in Woodstown-Pilesgrove ). This principle rests on the assumption that most decisions of the public employer affect the work and welfare of public employees to some extent and that negotiation will always impinge to some extent on the determination of governmental policy. In re Paterson Police PBA, 87 N.J. at 91-92. The requirement that the interference be significant is designed to effect a balance between the interests of public employees and the requirements of democratic decision making. As Justice Schreiber wrote in Woodstown-Pilesgrove, The nature of the terms and conditions of employment must be considered in relation to the extent of their interference with managerial prerogatives. A weighing or balancing must be made. When the dominant issue is [a governmental] goal, there is no obligation to negotiate and subject the matter, including its impact, to binding arbitration. Thus these matters may not be included in the negotiations and in the binding arbitration process even though they may affect or impact upon the employees' terms and conditions of employment. [81 N.J. at 591] Thus negotiation will be allowed on a subject that intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees unless such negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To summarize, a subject is negotiable between public employers and employees when (1) the item intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy. To decide whether a negotiated agreement would significantly interfere with the determination of governmental policy, it is necessary to balance the interests of the public employees and the public employer. When the dominant concern is the government's managerial prerogative to determine policy, a subject may not be included in collective negotiations even though it may intimately affect employees' working conditions.