Background
The East Orange Educational Support Professionals’ Association represents custodians employed by the East Orange Board of Education. Their collective bargaining agreement provided that custodians who worked on a day when schools were closed for an emergency would receive their regular pay plus an additional one-and-a-half times their salary.
After New Jersey closed schools to students during the COVID-19 emergency, the Board initially paid custodians 250% of their regular pay for reporting in person. It stopped paying the additional 150% on July 13, 2020, relying on N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1), which entitled covered public-school employees to compensation under their agreements as if school facilities remained open.
An arbitrator found that the schools were “closed” within the meaning of the agreement and awarded the custodians premium pay. The Chancery Division confirmed the award, but the Appellate Division reversed and directed that the custodial portion be vacated. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division. It held that the arbitration award directly contradicted the express mandate of N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1) and therefore was not “reasonably debatable,” the deferential standard ordinarily governing judicial review of public-sector arbitration awards.
Because the schools were closed for more than three consecutive school days due to declared emergencies and the custodians were covered by a collective negotiations agreement, the statute required them to be compensated as if the facilities remained open. The Court concluded that this meant standard salary, not standard salary plus the agreement’s emergency-closure premium. The statutory exception allowing negotiated additional compensation for additional work did not apply because the custodians did not claim that subsequent negotiations occurred or that they performed additional work during the period at issue.
The Court declined to rely on contrary legislative history because it found the statutory text unambiguous. It also rejected the argument that the provision applied only to employees unable to work in person and did not reach the parties’ separate preemption arguments. Chief Justice Rabner dissented, concluding that the statute was ambiguous and the arbitrator’s interpretation was at least reasonably debatable.
Key Takeaways
- A public-sector arbitration award cannot stand when it directly contradicts an express statutory command, despite the deferential “reasonably debatable” standard.
- N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1) required covered school employees to be paid during qualifying emergency closures as if school facilities remained open.
- The custodians were not entitled to the agreement’s emergency-closure premium because they identified no subsequent negotiation for additional compensation or additional work within the statute’s exception.
Why It Matters
The decision limits enforcement of collective-bargaining provisions granting premium pay based solely on extended emergency school closures when N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9(e)(1) applies. It also reinforces that courts may vacate even deferentially reviewed public-sector arbitration awards when the result directly conflicts with clear statutory language.
The divided ruling highlights an interpretive dispute over whether the 2020 legislation preserved existing negotiated benefits or capped compensation at the amount employees would have received had schools remained open.