finding Legislature, through enactment of EERA, “recognized that the unilateral imposition of working conditions is the antithesis of its goal that the terms and conditions of public employment be established through bilateral negotiation”
How later courts described this case
- finding Legislature, through enactment of EERA, “recognized that the unilateral imposition of working conditions is the antithesis of its goal that the terms and conditions of public employment be established through bilateral negotiation”
- stating "PERC is charged with administering the [EERA], and its interpretation of the Act is entitled to substantial deference"
- PERC "is given certain statutory powers to fulfill its delegated duty as a regulatory body in the field of public employment labor relations. These include legislation (i.e., rule making), investigation, prosecution and adjudication."
- requiring that the terms of the agreement remain in effect even if expired
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Coneoed, P. J. A. D.
(temporarily assigned), concurring. I agree with the judgment and all of the opinion of the *53 Court except its determination that the withholding of the increments by the Board during negotiations was a violation of that provision of N. J. S. A. 34:13A-5.3 which prohibits unilateral modification by the employer of “existing rules governing working conditions” without negotiation with the union (pp. 48-49).
What the Board did here was to alter compensation, not “working conditions.” Common parlance in labor relations law and practice distinguishes between compensation and working conditions. However they are together comprehended by the term “terms and conditions of employment.” PERC here held that the Board’s altering existing terms and conditions of employment, (using that term in its collective sense) during negotiations for a new contract constituted a failure to negotiate and consequently an unfair labor practice, contrary to N. J. S. A. 34:13A-5.4(a) (1) and (5). It is sufficient for our holding here that we sustain PERC’s action in that respect, without straining to uphold its decision on the added ground of unilateral change in “working conditions,” a concept not here relevant.
Conford, P. J. A. D., concurring in the result.
For reversal — 'Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Sullivan, P ashman, Clifford, Schreiber and Handler and Judge Coneokd — 7.
For affirmance — None.