# Galloway Township Board of Education v. Galloway Township Education Ass'n

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · August 1, 1978 · 78 N.J. 25

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650181

## Case

- **Full name:** Galloway Township Board of Education, Respondent-Respondent, v. Galloway Township Education Association, Charging Party-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** August 1, 1978
- **Citations:** 78 N.J. 25; 393 A.2d 218; 100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2250; 1978 N.J. LEXIS 224
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Coneoed
- **Judges:** Pashman, Coneoed
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650181

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650181. Public record. Not legal advice.