Holding: A police union’s demand that management to assign at least two full-time officers to each shift was not mandatorily negotiable because it infringed on management’s right to determine overtime and manning levels.
New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission
In the Matter of Township of Readington,
Petitioner,
and
Policemen’s Benevolent Association,
Local No. 273,
Respondent.
Docket No. SN-83-135
P.E.R.C. NO. 84-7
9 NJPER 533
1983 NJPER (LRP) Lexis 166
August 11, 1983, Decided
Mastriani, Chairman
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 27, 1983, the Township of Readington (“Township”) filed a Petition for Scope of Negotiations Determination with the Public Employment Relations Commission. The petition seeks a declaration that certain contract provisions which the Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Local No. 273 (“PBA”) wants included in successor contracts covering two units are not mandatorily negotiable. The provisions concern minimum manning and compulsory overtime assignments.
The parties have submitted briefs and documents. The following facts appear.
The PBA is the majority representative of two negotiations units. The first includes all patrol officers and detectives, the second includes all sergeants. Separate contracts cover each unit and contain the following provisions:
Article XI
HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME
E. Overtime:
...An employee shall have the right to refuse any overtime assigned and shall not be subject to disciplinary action thereof.
Article XII
MINIMUM MANPOWER PER SHIFT
Each shift shall be manned by a minimum of two (2) full-time Police Officers on duty at all times.
The Township if necessary, shall recall officers to duty at the overtime rate in order to properly man the shift in compliance with this Article.
Except in cases of emergencies beyond the control of the Chief, there shall be no violation.
The parties are currently involved in an interest arbitration over the terms and conditions of employment to be incorporated into the new agreements. The Township has filed the instant petition seeking a declaration that the above provisions are not mandatorily negotiable.
The Township contends that the minimum manning provision is not mandatorily negotiable under such cases as In re City of Camden, P.E.R.C. No. 83-116, 9 NJPER 163 (14077 1983), In re City of Camden, P.E.R.C. No. 82-71, 8 NJPER 110 (13046 1982), and In re City of East Orange, P.E.R.C. No. 81-11, 6 NJPER 378 (11195 1980), aff’d App. Div. Docket No. A-4581-79 (July 15, 1981). It contends that the provision allowing rejection of overtime assignments compromises its ability to determine manning levels and is not mandatorily negotiable under such cases as Irvington PBA Local #28 v. Town of Irvington, 170 N.J. Super. 539, 5 NJPER 10266 (App. Div. 1979), certif. den. 82 N.J. 296 (1982), In re City of Long Branch, P.E.R.C. No. 83-15, 8 NJPER 448 (13211 1982) (“Long Branch”), In re Borough of Atlantic Highlands, P.E.R.C. No. 83-75, 9 NJPER 46 (14021 1982), appeal pending App. Div. Docket No. A-2307-82T3, and In re City of Atlantic City, P.E.R.C. No. 83-93, 9 NJPER 79 (14093 1982).
The PBA concedes that the minimum manning provision is not mandatorily negotiable, but argues that the provision should remain in the contracts because the Township never demanded to the PBA that it be removed or submitted the issue of its deletion to the interest arbitrator. The PBA argues that the provision allowing rejection of overtime assignments does not affect the Township’s manning determinations because the Township has the reserved right to declare an emergency and make overtime assignments compulsory.
In scope of negotiations cases where the Commission or courts have previously rendered controlling precedents, the Commission has delegated authority to me pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-6(f) to issue decisions. This is such a case.
In the instant case, I consider only whether the minimum manning and overtime assignment provisions are mandatorily negotiable in the abstract. [1] Applying well-settled case law, I hold that they are not.
The minimum manning provision is not mandatorily negotiable. The cases the Township cites control this question.
The clause granting employees the unqualified right to reject all overtime assignments is also no mandatorily negotiable. In Long Branch, the Commission drew a distinction between, on the one hand, the public employer’s managerial prerogatives to determine that overtime work is necessary and to mandate that a certain number of employees work such overtime and, on the other hand, the mandatorily negotiable subject of the allocation of overtime among unit employees.[2] The instant provision compromises the Township’s managerial prerogatives with respect to determining when overtime must be worked and manning levels for such work because on its face the clause prohibits compulsory overtime. Accordingly, I find that the provision is not mandatorily negotiable.
ORDER
The provisions in the current contracts between the Township of Readington and the Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Local No. 273 concerning minimum manning and the rejection of overtime assignments are not mandatorily negotiable.
Notes:
1. I find a sufficient dispute concerning the negotiability of these provisions and their inclusion in successor contracts to trigger this Commission’s jurisdiction. There was no need to ask the interest arbitrator to resolve them as a condition to the exercise of the Commission’s jurisdiction.
2. The Commission recognized, however, that even though overtime allocation is generally negotiable, there are still specific limitations on negotiability designed to insure that the employer will obtain a sufficient number of qualified employees to perform the necessary overtime tasks. Thus, for example, if an urgent situation necessitates that the police department meet its manpower needs without instant compliance with a negotiated allocation system, it has the reserved right to make the necessary assignments to protect the public interest. In re Borough of Pitman, P.E.R.C. No. 82-50, 7 NJPER 678 (12306 1981). Also, if an employer needs a particular employee with special skills and qualifications to perform a specific overtime task, it may order that individual to work the overtime and thus insure that its needs are met. In re Local 195 and State of New Jersey, 88 N.J. 393, 8 NJPER 13129 (1982).