Franklin Township Bd. of Ed. v. Franklin Township Education Association

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

Franklin Township Bd. of Ed. v. Franklin Township Education Association

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

SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION

Are teachers entitled to more pay when their class size increases? The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) found that an arbitrator should determine whether a special education teacher was entitled to additional compensation for teaching two students added to her special education resource center class. In the unreported decision of Franklin Township Bd. of Ed. v. Franklin Township Education Association, decided June 10, 2004, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed PERC’s ruling that the matter was arbitrable.
    The matter arose when the Board of Education, faced with the need for an additional in-class support teacher, had consolidated two resource center classes, freeing up one of the resource center teachers for the in-class support assignment. The two students in the reassigned teacher’s resource center class were combined with the six students in the remaining resource center class. The remaining resource center teacher filed a grievance, claiming an entitlement to $12,367.40 in compensation under the collective bargaining agreement’s Emergency Class Coverage clause. The teacher claimed that by adding the two-student resource center class into her own class, she was in essence covering an additional two-student class every day and was entitled to additional compensation for that class coverage.
    The school district denied the grievance at all levels. The principal, the first level of the grievance, determined that no additional compensation was owed to the teacher, as the two additional students did not result in any additional teaching time. At the next level, the director of personnel found that no class size language was contained in the contract, that the students were scheduled to receive instructional support as needed, not planned lessons and that any increase in the teacher’s workload was minimal. The Board similarly denied the grievance, finding that teachers were not entitled to additional compensation for increased class size, that a class size in excess of State special education limits was not a basis for additional compensation, that the teacher lost no preparation/conference time and that the teacher filed her grievance out of time. The Board denial of the grievance led to an Association request for arbitration and a subsequent Board scope of negotiations petition to PERC.
    In allowing the matter to proceed to arbitration, PERC did not consider the contractual arbitrability or merits of the grievance, or any contractual defenses the Board may have, including whether the grievance was brought in a timely manner. These would all be decisions for the arbitrator on review.
    NJSBA participated as amicus curiae at the Appellate Division level arguing that in applying the third prong of the Local 195 negotiability test, PERC failed to undertake the detailed analysis required by the New Jersey Supreme Court decisions in Woodstown-Pilesgrove, 81 N.J. 582 (1980), and Local 195, 88 N.J. 393 (1982) and the Appellate Division decision in Piscataway, 307 N.J.Super. 263 (App. Div. 1998). NJSBA also argued that PERC’s analysis should have included a review of whether the impact of the Board’s decision was de minimis, and that PERC’s decision did not represent sound public educational policy.
    However, the Court affirmed PERC’s decision The Court also affirmed PERC’s restraint of arbitration with respect to any challenge to the number of students in the teacher’s class; i.e. class size. The Appellate Division deferred to PERC’s administrative expertise, finding the issue to be narrow and circumscribed and PERC’s determination to be not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Appellate Division affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in PERC’s decision.
    The Board’s petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied on September 21, 2004, which means that the decision of the Appellate Division stands.