Camden Bd. of Ed. v. Alexander, et al

Front Page • Active Cases • Archives • Contact Us • About Legal Services • NJSBA Home • Legal Dpt. Home1

Camden Bd. of Ed. v. Alexander, et al

APRIL 2005

II
IN THIS ISSUE

Camden
Bd.of Ed. v. Alexander, et al.

Camden
Bd. of Ed. v. McGreevey et al.

P.H. and P.H. on behalf of M.C. v. Bd. of Ed. of the Borough of Bergenfield

Franklin Twp.
Bd. of Ed. v. Franklin Twp. Ed. Ass'n

Magnolo v. Washington Twp. Bd. of Ed.

O’Shea v. West Milford Bd. of Ed

Ramsey
Bd. of Ed. v. Ramsey Teachers Ass'n

In the Matter of Monmouth-Ocean Educational Services Commission, Rumson-Fair Haven Regional High School District, Stafford Twp. Bd. of Ed.

In the Matter of the Petition of New Jersey American Water Company, Inc., for an Increase in Rates for Water and Sewer Service and Other Tariff Modifications

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT
When is a non-renewal not a non-renewal? When it is converted by an arbitrator into a termination. In Camden Bd. of Ed. v. Alexander, et al., 352 N.J. Super. 442, certif. granted, 175 N.J. 77 (2003), the Appellate Division attempted to give arbitrators the power to do exactly that. However, the State’s Supreme Court disagreed. Ultimately, the State’s highest court ruled that unless a school board has explicitly waived the right to do so, school boards have the power to non-renew non-certificated employees without subjecting those decisions to arbitration as if they were disciplinary terminations. Camden Bd. of Ed. v. Alexander, et al, 181 N.J. 187 (2004). The controversy started in 2000 when the Camden Board of Education issued letters to fifteen of its custodians “warning that disciplinary action, including "not being recommended for reappointment," could be taken due to excessive absenteeism.” Subsequently, each of the custodians was given a statement of reasons for his non-renewal. The non-renewed custodians filed grievances. The Board filed an action to restrain arbitration with the Commissioner of Education who, after an initial determination by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) denying the restraint, affirmed the OAL decision. One arbitration followed. On June 15, 2002, the Board sought a permanent injunction from the Superior Court. The trial court denied the injunction saying:
	The employees should have the right to present that argument to an arbitrator to make a determination as to whether or not the scope of the rights afforded to the employees under the just cause provision, as well as whether the reason for the non-renewals is pretextual on terms of either being disciplined or a [ruse] to engage in a layoff.
The Board appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed with the Law Division that the non-renewed employees were entitled to a hearing before an arbitrator. This holding effectively gave non-tenured staff who believed they were non-renewed for disciplinary reasons, greater rights than competently performing employee who believed they were non-renewed for evaluative or monetary reasons. An employee who could not allege a "disciplinary" motivation on the employer's part, would have no right to arbitration, The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. NJSBA joined in as amicus arguing, along with the Camden Board, that the Court should follow the reasoning set forth in Marlboro Twp. Bd. of Education v. Marlboro Twp. Education Association, 299 N.J. Super. 283 (App. Div. 1997) certif. denied, 151 N.J. 71 (1997), that the rights of similarly- situated employees should rise no higher than those of faultless employees who had no right to reemployment. Id. at 287. They also argued that the Court must uphold the Legislative intent of the non-renewal statute by giving boards of education the authority to non-renew for any reason, as long as it was not arbitrary or capricious. The State Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, agreed with the arguments of the Board and NJSBA to determine that arbitration should not be required. The Court ruled that
	“The Board is entitled to depend on the authority the Legislature conferred on it, subject to constitutional limitations, unless its statutory right can be and, explicitly, has been negotiated away. Arbitration is a voluntary device. Requiring that non-renewal be clearly and unmistakably subjected to arbitration under the terms of a collective negotiation agreement properly respects the Board's statutory prerogative over decisions concerning the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts of employment.” Camden, 181 N.J. 187 (2004) at 203.
Despite a lengthy and vociferous dissent penned by Justice Zazzali, the fact remains that Boards have the power to non-renew employees, absent arbitrary and capricious reasons, without subjecting those decisions to arbitration.