Court: Labor Contract Language is Key

Court: Labor Contract Language is Key

A New Jersey Appellate Division panel recently issued two labor rulings involving mid-term terminations of custodians. In two separate cases involving the Medford Township and Mount Holly Township boards of education, the panel ruled that custodians who had been terminated by their school boards according to individual employment contracts were not entitled to arbitrate the school boards’ decisions to terminate them.

These two unanimous rulings underscore the concept that the decision whether a district must provide arbitration of mid-term terminations will hinge on the specific language contained in a collective bargaining agreement.

The appellate panel relied on a 2007 New Jersey Supreme Court decision involving the Pascack Valley Board of Education, in which the court ruled that the language of the district’s collective bargaining agreement clearly entitled the dismissed custodian to pursue a grievance, including arbitration of his termination. The collective bargaining agreement stated, “Any dismissal or suspension shall be considered a disciplinary action and shall at the option of the custodian … be subject to the Grievance Procedure.” The appellate panel pointed to the fact that, while the collective bargaining agreement language in Medford and Mount Holly was otherwise identical to that in Pascack Valley, the Medford and Mount Holly agreements contained neither the language quoted above nor any comparable provision. This was crucial to the appellate panel’s decision to affirm the trial court’s restraint of arbitration.

While these two rulings are unpublished and therefore do not set legal precedent, they reinforce the principle that courts will carefully scrutinize a collective bargaining agreement’s precise negotiated language to determine whether a terminated employee has a right to arbitrate an employment decision. Boards of education should find these rulings instructive at the bargaining table.