Kearny PBA Local 21 v. Town of Kearny
81 N.J. 208, 1979 N.J. LEXIS 1268, 405 A.2d 393 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Judicial review of a public sector grievance arbitration award is limited to determining whether the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is reasonably debatable. So long as the interpretation is plausible and does not violate public policy or statutory criteria, the court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the arbitrator.
Facts:
- On October 11, 1976, some employees of the Town of Kearny initiated a strike.
- In response, the Kearny chief of police issued a directive ordering all police department members to remain on a standby basis and not to leave the Town of Kearny until further notice.
- The order remained in effect from the evening of October 11 until noon on October 15, 1976.
- Kearny P.B.A. Local #21 (PBA) and the Town of Kearny were parties to a collective bargaining agreement governing terms of employment, including overtime.
- During prior contract negotiations, the PBA had unsuccessfully sought an express provision granting compensation for officers required 'to be on standby at home.'
- The PBA claimed officers were entitled to overtime pay for the standby period under the existing agreement, but the Town refused to make any payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Kearny P.B.A. Local #21 submitted a grievance for overtime pay, which the Town of Kearny denied, leading to binding arbitration.
- The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the PBA, granting overtime pay to all police officers for the standby period.
- The PBA filed a complaint in the trial court to confirm the award, and the Town filed a complaint to vacate it.
- The trial court confirmed the arbitrator's award in full.
- The Town of Kearny, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court's judgment, upholding the award for non-resident police officers but vacating it for officers who resided in Kearny.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to the PBA's petition to reinstate the full award and the Town's cross-petition to vacate the entire award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arbitrator exceed his powers when his interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, which awards overtime pay for on-call standby time, is a reasonably debatable construction of the contract's terms?
Opinions:
Majority - Schreiber, J.
No. An arbitrator does not exceed his powers when his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is reasonably debatable. The scope of judicial review is limited to determining whether the interpretation of the contractual language is reasonably debatable, and if so, courts must adhere to the parties' agreement to use an arbitrator. The arbitrator's function is to discern the parties' intent, and here, he reasonably concluded that the town-wide standby directive was different from the 'standby at home' provision rejected during negotiations. He also reasonably found that the contract intended uniform treatment for all officers, making the Appellate Division's distinction between residents and non-residents improper. While public sector arbitrators must consider public interest and welfare, the arbitrator's interpretation of what constitutes 'hours worked' under the contract was a plausible construction and should be upheld.
Concurring - Pashman, J.
No. The 'reasonably debatable' standard is the correct and traditional standard for reviewing grievance arbitration, which should not be expanded. It is crucial to distinguish grievance arbitration (interpreting an existing contract) from interest arbitration (creating new contract terms). Grievance arbitration is not a delegation of legislative power but a substitute for a judicial breach of contract action, intended to be a speedy and final resolution. Applying a more searching 'substantial credible evidence' review would undermine arbitration's purpose by turning it into a 'springboard to litigation.' While public sector arbitration is subject to constraints regarding non-negotiable subjects and public policy, once a dispute is properly before an arbitrator, judicial interference with the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract must be strictly limited.
Analysis:
This case establishes a highly deferential standard of judicial review for public sector grievance arbitration awards in New Jersey, solidifying the 'reasonably debatable' test. The decision strengthens the finality of arbitration by preventing courts from overturning awards simply because they disagree with the arbitrator's contract interpretation. However, the court also carves out a special consideration for the public sector, noting that awards are still subject to review for compliance with public policy and statutory criteria. The distinction between grievance and interest arbitration, emphasized in the concurrence, provides a crucial framework for determining the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny in public employment law.
