On
June 24, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in
In
this decision, the Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Division decision to
hold that the mid-contract termination of a custodian was subject to
arbitration under the parties’ collective negotiations agreement (CNA). The CNA contained a provision that no
employee shall be discharged without just cause and that such action is subject
to the grievance procedure. However, the custodian’s individual employment
contract expressly provided that either party could terminate the contract upon
14 days’ notice. The App. Div. decision held that the Board had the right to
terminate the employee pursuant to the terms of the individual employment
contract, without showing just cause or having its termination decision subject
to arbitration.
However,
the Supreme Court disagrees, finding that to the extent provisions in an
individual employment contract conflict or interfere with rights provided by
the CNA, the language in the individual contract must yield to the CNA. The Court also held that requiring
arbitration in this case is consistent with the Legislature’s amendment to N.J.S.A.
34:13A-5.3, which reaffirmed the principle that “arbitration is a favored means
of resolving labor disputes.” (The
dissenting opinion in this case contends that there is no conflict between the
individual employment contract and the CNA, much less one to justify nullifying
portions of the individual contract; and that termination does not fall within
the definition of a “grievance” necessary to trigger the CNA’s grievance
procedure.)
As a whole, this case is important from a Board’s perspective as it
reiterates the point that Boards must be careful regarding the content of their
grievance procedure. If there is any
ambiguity or uncertainty regarding whether a mid-contract termination is
subject to the grievance procedure, courts and PERC will find that the
presumption in favor of arbitration exists.
Thus, if a board does not wish for mid-contract terminations to be
subject to arbitration, it must have clear language which either exempts these
situations from arbitration, or does not provide for arbitration at all.