H.E. No. 82-39

Synopsis:

A Hearing Examiner recommends that the Public Employment Relations Commission deny the Motion by the Charging Party for an order setting aside the stipulation of settlement, dated June 22, 1981, wherein the Charging Party and the Respondent by their attorneys agreed to settle the underlying unfair practice charge wherein the charge was to be withdrawn with prejudice. The Stipulation of Settlement contemplated that there would be one negotiation session conducted in good faith regarding the up-grading of a clerk-typist and if agreement was not reached then negotiations would terminate "without further proceedings." The negotiations session took place and no agreement was reached. The Hearing Examiner rejected the argument of counsel for the Charging Party that the matter be reopened, citing as precedent decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Division.

PERC Citation:

H.E. No. 82-39, 8 NJPER 241 (¶13105 1982)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

71.228

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- HE 82-039.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

H.E. NO. 82-39 1. H.E. NO. 82-39 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of NORTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-81-180-102 NORTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Charging Party. Appearances: For the North Brunswick Township Board of Education Borrus, Goldin & Foley, Esqs. (Anthony B. Vignuolo, Esq.) For the North Brunswick Township Education Association Klausner & Hunter, Esqs. (Stephen E. Klausner, Esq.) HEARING EXAMINER = S RECOMMENDED REPORT AND DECISION ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT An Unfair Practice Charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (hereinafter the A Commission @ ) on December 12, 1980 by the North Brunswick Township Education Association (hereinafter the A Charging Party @ or the A Association @ ) alleging that the North Brunswick Township Board of Education (hereinafter the A Respondent @ or the A Board @ ) had engaged in unfair practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, as amended, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (hereinafter the A Act @ ), in that since September 1980 the Respondent has reduced the staffing in the Material Resource Center of the High School by one 20-hour employee and has thereby increased the workload of Marge DeFrank and that the Respondent has refused to negotiate additional compensation for DeFrank, all of which was alleged to be a violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A- 5.4(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.1/ It appearing that the allegations of the Unfair Practice Charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices within the meaning of the Act, a Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on February 18, 1981. Pursuant to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing a hearing was held on April 13, 1981 in Newark, New Jersey, at which time the parties were given an opportunity to examine witnesses, present relevant evidence and argue orally. Oral argument was waived. Prior to the filing of post-hearing briefs on May 13, 1981 the instant matter was the subject of settlement discussions. A Stipulation of Settlement was executed on June 22, 1981 by counsel for the parties. Following the execution of the Stipulation of Settlement, supra, a withdrawal with prejudice was filed by the Charging Party with the Director of Unfair Practices. The withdrawal was acknowledged by the Director of Unfair Practices on July 2, 1981 and the case was closed. The foregoing Stipulation of Settlement provided as follows: The parties shall, in good faith, conduct one (1) negotiation session concerning the alleged increase in workload and responsibilities of the clerk-typist for the school year 1980-1981 employed by the Media Resource Center at the North Brunswick Township High School. The negotiations shall be held at a time and place to be mutually agreed upon by the parties within 15 days of the date hereof. In the event the parties can not reach an agreement, the negotiations shall terminate without further proceedings, with the express understanding that this issue may be negotiated as part of any successor Collective Bargaining Agreement. (Emphasis supplied). On December 22, 1981, counsel for the Charging Party filed a Motion for an Order Setting Aside the Stipulation of Settlement and Certification, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows: ...It is the position of the Association that the primary operative fact leading to the Association = s settlement of the matter, to wit; an upgrading to be funded out of the entire economic package for the 1981-1982 collective bargaining agreement for one of the Association = s members, was, by agreement, intentionally not embodied in the writing. Apparently, the critical operative event was either not communicated to the Board of Education, misunderstood by the counsel for the Board of Education, or was repudiated by the Board of Education at a later date, but in any event, no upgrading occurred. On December 28, 1981 counsel for the Respondent filed a reply Certification, referring to the instant Stipulation of Settlement and several others, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows: ...There were no collateral or oral agreements beyond those incorporated into the written stipulations of settlement. The Association alleges that the > primary operative fact = leading to the Association = s settlement of these cases was an upgrading to be funded out of the economic package for the Association = s 1981-82 Collective Bargaining Agreement. There never was any such agreement reached nor is any such agreement reflected in any of the written documents. The North Brunswick Township Board of Education agreed to permit the upgrading of a clerk-typist position to be added to the pending negotiations for a successor Collective Bargaining Agreement. This was done. A subsequent Collective Bargaining Agreement for the school years 1981-1982 was negotiated and executed by the parties without an upgrading of the clerk-typist position in the media resource room at the North Brunswick Township High School. The execution of this agreement bars any attempt, at this point, to renegotiate that issue. On February 16, 1982 the Director of Unfair Practices referred the matter to the instant Hearing Examiner for determination. On February 23, 1982 the Hearing Examiner conducted a telephone conference with counsel for the parties and heard their oral arguments on the papers heretofore filed, supra. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the Charging Party = s Motion to Set Aside Stipulation of Settlement is denied. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Commission is charged, inter alia, with the responsibility for A ...the prevention or prompt settlement of labor disputes... @ N.J.S.A. 34:13A-2. As the Commission said in Borough of East Rutherford, P.E.R.C. No. 82-51, 7 NJPER 680 (1981): A ...Consistent with these responsibilities (of settling labor disputes), the Commission strongly advocates the voluntary resolution of labor disputes. Moreover, the Commission recognizes that the unfair practice forum before this agency may often give much needed meaning to voluntary settlement agreements... @ (7 NJPER at 681). The Hearing Examiner also has looked to several Appellate Division decisions regarding settlement stipulations or agreements. For example, in Carlsen v. Carlsen, 49 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1958), the court said: Since stipulations in court made by attorneys when acting within the scope of their authority are enforceable against their clients certainly, stipulations by attorneys and their clients before the court and in the record must, a fortiori be enforceable... (49 N.J. Super. at 137). The Appellate Division in Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130 (1974) said: Embedded in our jurisprudence is the principle that the settlement of litigation ranks high in our public policy (citing cases)... (130 N.J. Super. at 135). The Appellate Division in Honeywell v. Bubb, supra, also said: ...barring fraud or other compelling circumstances, our courts strongly favor the policy that the settlement of litigation be attained and agreements thereby reached, be honored... (130 N.J. Super. at 136). The Commission also had occasion to cite Honeywell v. Bubb, supra, in its decision in Borough of Hawthorne, P.E.R.C. No. 82- 37, 7 NJPER 602 (1981). From all of the foregoing it is apparent that there is a well settled policy in New Jersey, as well as in other jurisdictions, that settlements reached by counsel A ...when acting within the scope of their authority... @ are enforceable against their clients. The Hearing Examiner is persuaded that when counsel for the Charging Party herein entered into settlement discussions which culminated in the Stipulation of Settlement of June 22, 1981 the settlement was binding upon the Charging Party. In examining the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, quoted above, it is clear that the Respondent committed itself to negotiate A in good faith @ at one negotiations session concerning the alleged increase in workload of the clerk-typist employed by the Media Resource Center for the 1980-81 school year. Thereafter the settlement provided that in the event that an agreement was not reached A ...then negotiations shall terminate without further proceedings... @ No interpretation can be placed upon the phase A without further proceedings @ except that the Charging Party agreed that the Respondent was insulated against any attempted resurrection of the instant unfair practice proceedings. The Hearing Examiner has, in so deciding, considered fully the oral argument of the parties by their counsel on February 23, 1982. Notwithstanding the contention of the Charging Party that the A critical operative event @ was not and could not be embodied in the Stipulation of Settlement, the Hearing Examiner has no recourse but to deny the Charging Party = s Motion for an Order Setting Aside the Stipulation of Settlement, based upon the above decisions of the Commission and the Appellate Division. * * * For all of the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner makes the following Recommended Order: RECOMMENDED ORDER The Hearing Examiner recommends that the Commission ORDER that the Charging Party = s Motion for an Order Setting Aside Stipulation of Settlement be denied. /s/Alan R. Howe Hearing Examiner DATED: March 5, 1982 Trenton, New Jersey 1/ These Subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: A (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by this Act. (5) Refusing to negotiate in good faith with a majority representative of employees in an appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment of employees in that unit, or refusing to process grievances presented by the majority representative. @ ***** End of HE 82-39 *****