explaining that "the public employer's substantive decision to transfer or assign employees" "constitutes inherent managerial prerogatives" (emphasis omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that "the public employer's substantive decision to transfer or assign employees" "constitutes inherent managerial prerogatives" (emphasis omitted)
- reiterating that preemption applies unqualifiedly to regulations affecting terms or conditions of employment when adopted by regulatory agency having no direct employer interest over employees affected
- noting distinction between promulgation of a regulation by an agency with jurisdiction over all state employees and by an agency with jurisdiction over a specific group of employees with which it must negotiate
- stating same and citing examples of forms of workforce reduction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHREIBER, J.,
concurring.
When- an administrative agency promulgates a rule or regulation pursuant to its enabling statutory authority and in accordance with prescribed procedures, that rule or regulation, in the absence of a constitutional limitation, is valid and effective. Its validity does not depend on whether its own employees are directly affected. If the regulation sufficiently covers an item so that it is no longer negotiable, then the matter is preempted. Once it is determined that the rule or regulation is valid, the inquiry is at an end irrespective of whether the persons affected are employees of the promulgating agency — for that is the authority which has been vested in the governmental agency by the Legislature.
I agree with the majority’s analysis of the extent of the preemption of the regulations adopted by the State Board of *38 Higher Education and its conclusion that the regulations do not violate the State’s tenure statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:60-1 et seq.
Accordingly, I join the affirmance of the Appellate Division’s judgment as modified.
SCHREIBER, J., concurring in the result.
For affirmance as modified — Chief Justice WILENTZ and PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN — 7.
For reversal — None.