H.E. NO. 98-2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER OF THE

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of

BOROUGH OF TENAFLY,

Respondent,

-and-	Docket No. CO-H-96-253

TENAFLY PBA LOCAL 180,

Charging Party.

Appearances:

For the Respondent, Lesnevich & Marazano-Lesnevich, attorneys

(Walter A. Lesnevich, of counsel)

For the Charging Party, Loccke & Correia, attorneys

(Leon B. Savetsky, of counsel)

HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDED DECISION

On March 4, 1996, Tenafly PBA Local 180 filed an unfair practice charge with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission alleging that the Borough of Tenafly violated subsections 5.4(a)(1), (2), (5), (6) and (7) of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq.1/

1/	These subsections prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: "(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. (2) Dominating or interfering with the formation, existence or administration of any employee organization. (5) Refusing to negotiate in

Footnote Continued on Next Page

The PBA alleged that the Borough violated the Act by refusing to reduce a negotiated agreement to writing, refusing to sign such agreement, repudiating an approved agreement, and refusing to implement negotiated changes. The charge further alleged that the Borough interfered with PBA protected rights because by relying on the Borough's initial approval of a negotiated agreement, it withdrew a previously timely filed interest arbitration petition.

The PBA seeks attorney fees and an order directing the Borough to sign the negotiated agreement and implement its terms.

A Complaint and Notice of Hearing was issued on August 2, 1996. Hearings were held on October 29, 1996 and January 13, 1997.2/ At hearing on October 29, the PBA withdrew its allegation that the Borough violated subsections 5.4(a)(1), (2) and (7) of the Act (1T21). Both parties filed post-hearing briefs by June 2, 1997.

Based upon the entire record, I make the following:

1/	Footnote Continued From Previous Page

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. (6) Refusing to reduce a negotiated agreement to writing and to sign such agreement. (7) Violating any of the rules and regulations established by the commission."

2/	The transcripts will be referred to as 1T and 2T, respectively.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The PBA and Borough were parties to a collective agreement effective January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995 (CP-1). In anticipation of contract expiration, the parties began negotiations for a new collective agreement in the fall of 1995 (C-1A, C-1B). The PBA's negotiating committee included Detective Daniel Siegel, President of Local 180; Sgt. Peter Mezey; and Patrol Officers Timothy O'Reilly and Hector Olmo. The Borough's negotiating committee included three Borough Council members, William Saunders, Borough Police Commissioner; and Martha Kerge and Lenore Saydah (1T38, 1T61). Negotiations were held on September 27, November 2 and 16, 1995 (1T38). On November 27, 1995, the PBA filed a petition with the Commission to initiate compulsory interest arbitration, Docket No. IA-96-60 (C-1C).

2. The last negotiations session between the parties was held on December 11, 1995. The PBA's attorney, Richard Loccke, and Borough attorney, James Logan, attended the session with their respective teams (1T39). After several hours, the parties appeared to be at impasse and Mr. Logan left the meeting. Nevertheless, later that evening the parties reached an agreement which was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement (C-1D) and signed by every member of both teams.

Paragraph 5 of the Memorandum provided:

5) This Memorandum is subject to ratification by both parties. Both negotiating committee's agree to recommend ratification.

Saunders had wanted the Memorandum to read "recommended ratification" because he could not guarantee the Council would ratify the agreement (1T85-1T86).

3. After C-1D was signed, the Borough's team informed the PBA's team that they would bring the Memorandum to the Council and recommend its approval at its work session scheduled for the following day if the PBA had it approved by its membership first (1T66). In the afternoon of December 12, 1995, the PBA ratified C-1D by a unanimous formal vote of the membership (1T43, 1T55, 1T120-1T121).

4. The Borough's contract ratification procedure with the PBA and other unions since the 1980's has included several steps. After the negotiating committees reached agreement the union would ratify first. Then the Borough negotiating committee would recommend the "agreement" to the full Borough Council in a closed work session meeting. That meeting does not result in a vote. Rather, the Council reaches a consensus to either approve the agreement, or reject it. If the consensus is to reject the agreement it is not normally presented to the Council for a vote in an open public meeting.

If the consensus is to approve the agreement, a contract must be drafted, signed by the union, and then presented to the Council at an open public meeting for discussion. A salary and wage ordinance, and a resolution authorizing the signing of the contract will normally be prepared at that meeting and placed on the agenda

for a formal vote at the next open public meeting two weeks later. A formal ratification vote will be taken on the ordinance and resolution at the next meeting. If the vote approves the ordinance and resolution, the Borough's ratification process is completed (1T71-1T74, 1T80-1T82, 1T86, 1T93-1T96; 2T23, 2T27-2T30).

5. After the PBA ratified the new agreement in the afternoon of December 12, the Borough Council considered the agreement during a closed work session later that evening and reached a unanimous consensus to approve the agreement (1T67, 1T82). The consensus was reached without taking a vote (1T67, 1T97).

Immediately upon leaving that meeting, Council members informed PBA President Siegel that the Council had unanimously approved the agreement (1T45-1T47). Siegel testified that both Saydah and Saunders told him it was a "unanimous ratification" (1T45). Neither Saydah nor Saunders believed they said "ratification". Saydah testified she thought she said "approval", but both Saydah and Saunders also testified it was possible they used the word "ratification" (1T68, 1T82).

Since they could not deny they used the word "ratification", I credit Siegel's testimony that Saydah and Saunders said there was a unanimous ratification. Similarly, on December 13, 1995, Borough Councilman Patrick Rouse congratulated Officer Olmo on the new contract, and told him it had been "ratified" the previous evening (1T57-1T59).

Although Saydah, Saunders and Rouse used the word "ratification" or "ratify" in referring to what the Council did at its December 12 work session, I find that their use of those words did not constitute the Borough's ratification of C-1D. Both Saydah and Saunders testified that they understood ratification to be done by vote at an open public meeting, and that only approvals are done at the closed session meetings (1T71-1T73; 1T81). I credit their testimony. Councilman Lustig corroborated their testimony (1T93-1T96), and there was no evidence that Saydah, Saunders or Kerge understood the word ratification as used in C-1D to merely be an approval without a formal Council vote. In fact, Saydah testified there was no discussion about the meaning of the word "ratification" when C-1D was signed (1T69). I credit her testimony. There was no contrary evidence.

6. On December 26, 1995, PBA attorney Richard Loccke sent two letters regarding the Tenafly negotiations. One letter, C-1E, was sent to then Borough attorney, James Logan, enclosing a draft of the new agreement (CP-2). In his letter, Loccke referred to the settlement as having been ratified by the parties. He said in pertinent part:

Please find enclosed a contract draft which has been prepared consistent with the recent settlement now ratified by the parties in the above captioned matter.

That same day Loccke sent a letter to Timothy Hundley, the Commission's Acting Director of Arbitration (C-1G) notifying him that the parties had reached a settlement, and that it had been

ratified by both parties and was expected to be signed. He wrote in pertinent part:

We are pleased to advise that the parties have recently reached a voluntary settlement which has been ratified by both sides.

That letter served as a withdrawal of the petition in IA-96-60, and that case was closed that day. Loccke withdrew the petition because he believed the contract had been completed and there was no further need of Commission action (1T116).

7. As a result of the fall 1996 elections, the Borough Council was reorganized on or about January 1, 1996. There were two new Council members, Councilwomen Kerge and Saydah were no longer on the Council (but Saydah came back on the Council within two months) and there was a new Mayor (1T74, 1T98). At its reorganization meeting the Council also replaced Mr. Logan as the Borough attorney (1T98-1T99). Logan knew he was replaced as Borough attorney, effective January 1, 1996, but believed he was authorized to continue to represent the Borough to complete the PBA negotiations (2T9-2T12).

By letter of January 3, 1996 (C-1F), Logan responded to Loccke's December 26th letter, C-1E (2T9). In C-1F, Logan wrote that he reviewed the draft contract, and made one correction; but he did not refer to Loccke's use of the phrase, "now ratified" in C-1E. Logan's letter reads in pertinent part:

I have reviewed the Contract between the Borough of Tenafly and the P.B.A. Local 180 Policemen's Benevolent Association of New Jersey which appears to be satisfactory except for on Page 36,

in Article XX, Section 2, (last line) the word "four years" should be amended to "five years".

After the Contract has been amended, please have the same signed by the P.B.A. and return four copies to me at your earliest convenience for signature by the appropriate Municipal Officers.

An issue arose over whether Logan had authority when he issued C-1F. I need not resolve that issue in this hearing. For analysis purposes I will assume Logan had authority when he sent C-1F.

8. Despite the Council's work session approval of the Memorandum in December 1995, neither the Memorandum (C-1D) nor draft contract (CP-2) were presented to the Council in an open public meeting for discussion or a ratification vote. No salary ordinance or resolution approving or disapproving the agreement was ever voted upon in an open public meeting (1T86; 2T30).

In January 1996, after the reorganization meeting, the new Council met in closed work session, and considered C-1D. The Council reached a consensus rejecting the agreement (1T97-1T98). As a result, the memorandum/agreement was never placed on the open public meeting agenda for a formal vote (1T86-1T88). Council member Saunders apparently changed his mind and did not support the agreement at the January work session meeting (1T86).

9. While reviewing C-1F during his direct testimony, Logan was asked if he agreed with Loccke's statement in C-1E that the recent settlement had been ratified (i.e., as of December 12) and he (Logan) testified, "yes" (2T12-2T13). I do not credit that response in light of Logan's subsequent testimony, and other evidence.

Upon further examination, Logan testified that under the procedure of the Open Public Meeting's Act, once the Council reaches a consensus at a work session meeting the agreement had to be approved in a public meeting and a salary ordinance had to be adopted (2T23, 2T27-2T28). After explaining the procedure, Logan was again asked if he considered the Council's earlier consensus approval to have been a ratification. This time he drew a distinction between the parties reaching a meeting of minds and procedurally approving what they had agreed upon. He testified that the agreement had to be approved in a public meeting which meant the Council had to take a vote (2T29).

Logan further testified that he was unaware whether the Council conducted a formal ratification vote, and he agreed with Councilwoman Saydah that the consensus reached at the work session in December was not a vote, and that a public vote had to follow the work session (2T30). I credit Logan's latter testimony. It was obviously more comprehensive than his earlier one word response, and it corroborated Saydah's and Saunders earlier testimonies.

Consequently, I find that the Borough's ratification procedure required a formal vote on the agreement and/or on a resolution approving payment of the salaries in the agreement, in an open public meeting. Since no such vote was conducted regarding the memorandum, the Borough had not ratified the agreement.

10. Loccke dictated the language used in the memorandum of agreement (1T109). He testified that although he used the word

"ratification", he did not intend a formal ratification process (1T112). He considered the Council's verbal approval reached at the December work session meeting to constitute ratification (1T114-1T115). He withdrew IA-96-60 by C-1G, and referred to the settlement as having been ratified in C-1E only because he believed the Council's December 12th approval was its ratification (1T114-1T116). PBA President Siegel also thought that the Borough's approval was its ratification (1T47-1T48).

I credit Loccke's and Siegel's testimony. Loccke believed that the Council's approval was its ratification - otherwise, he would not have withdrawn IA-96-60. I find, however, that Loccke (and Siegel's) belief of what constituted Council ratification was inconsistent with the Council's established ratification practice which required a vote at an open public meeting.

Finally, Loccke was asked if he considered the Council's December 12 verbal approval to be ratification as he said in C-1E, and he testified:

My answer is yes. And this is the way we had done business in Tenafly for many years and many contracts (1T115).

While I credit the witnesses' belief, I do not credit that testimony to mean the Borough had a practice whereby the Council's closed session verbal approval constituted ratification. Rather, I find that the statement, "this is the way we had done business in Tenafly..." refers merely to the consistency of the Council's favorable consensus on tentative agreements leading to favorable

formal votes at public sessions and the passing of salary ordinances. While the PBA may have believed that the Council's mere verbal consensus constituted its ratification, it offered no evidence to dispute Saydah, Saunders and Lustig that the Council had to ratify agreements by adopting salary ordinances with a vote at a formal public meeting.

ANALYSIS

This case presents several issues for consideration. Did the parties reach a meeting of the minds regarding the meaning of the word "ratification" in their memorandum of agreement; what was the Borough's ratification procedure; and, did the Borough complete that procedure? In its post hearing brief the PBA also argued that since the Borough's answer did not dispute the facts alleged in the charge, those allegations must be deemed admitted and that no deviating facts be permitted.

The Answer

The PBA's attempt to deem the facts alleged in its charge admitted, and to keep any deviating evidence from being admitted, lacks merit. N.J.A.C. 19:14-3.1 provides in pertinent part that if no answer is filed all allegations in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true unless good cause to the contrary is shown. Although the PBA referred to the Borough's answer, no answer has, in fact, been received into this record. The Borough did

submit a document purported to be an answer which was received by the Commission on October 30, 1996, one day after the start of this hearing, too late for admission into evidence.

The lack of an answer, however, did not automatically result in the implementation of N.J.A.C. 19:14-3.1. The practice before the Commission is for a charging party to move for the implementation of that rule. The PBA made no such motion. Instead, it chose to augment its case by the presentation of evidence which produced a number of facts not alleged in its charge. The Borough then presented its case in opposition, which produced a number of facts at variance with-and in addition to-the facts alleged in the charge.

The PBA cannot have it both ways. It could have moved that allegations in its charge be deemed true and rested its case, but it didn't.3/ It cannot then present and rely on additional facts while denying that same opportunity to the Borough. Under these circumstances, the PBA's attempt to invoke N.J.A.C. 19:14-3.1 is denied.

The Borough's Ratification Procedure

The language in paragraph 5 of C-1D requiring ratification is a condition precedent to the reaching of a collective agreement. If one party fails to ratify, the tentative agreement does not

3/	There is no guarantee the PBA would have been successful even if such a motion was filed.

become binding. See City of Hoboken, P.E.R.C. No. 95-91, 21 NJPER 184 (¶26117 1995); Oakland Bd. Ed., H.E. No. 84-62, 10 NJPER 378 (¶15176 1984).

The theory to the PBA's case is that the Council's verbal consensus approval on December 12, 1995 constituted its ratification of the memorandum of agreement. The PBA relied upon at least four elements to support that theory. First, the testimony of its own witnesses that they thought the Council's consensus approval was its ratification. Second, that Council members Saydah, Saunders and Rouse used the word "ratification" in reference to the Council's actions on December 12. Third, that Logan did not challenge Loccke's use of the word "ratified" in C-1E; and fourth, its argument in its post-hearing brief that the word "ratification" means approval.

The record as a whole, however, does not support that theory. I believe that on its face, the ratification language in paragraph 5 of the memorandum of agreement required a formal vote by both parties. In public sector labor relations, the term "ratification" typically requires a vote of the union membership and of the governing body. The PBA, in fact, ratified the memorandum through a formal vote, yet argues the Borough is not entitled to the same opportunity.

If the PBA believed the use of the word "ratification" in the memorandum of agreement was to mean something other than a formal vote by the Borough, it should have included clear and

unequivocal language in the memorandum waiving the Borough's right to vote. Compare, Phillipsburg Bd. Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 90-35, 15 NJPER 623 (¶20260 1989); Old Bridge M.U.A., P.E.R.C. No. 84-116, 10 NJPER 261 (¶15162 1984). No such waiver language was included in C-1D.

Since, in my opinion, the language in item 5 of C-1D was clear on its face, I could have excluded the introduction of parol evidence. See County of Morris, D.U.P. No. 94-27, 20 NJPER 118 (¶25063 1994). That means, I could have excluded Loccke's and Siegels testimony about what they thought the word "ratification" meant, and excluded testimony from Borough witnesses on what constituted their ratification process, and simply found that absent the Council's formal vote it did not ratify the agreement. I was troubled, however, by the PBA's withdrawal of IA-96-60. The PBA would not have withdrawn that petition unless it felt certain the agreement had been finalized. Therefore, I permitted the introduction of parol evidence to help determine the meaning of the word "ratification" with respect to the Borough's obligation. See Casriel v. King, 2 N.J. 45 (1949); Compare, Delaware Valley Reg. Bd. Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 81-77, 7 NJPER 34 (¶12014 1980).

Having considered all of that evidence, I find the word "ratification" meant to the Borough more than a mere verbal approval. These parties did not have a meeting of the minds over what "ratification" meant. The PBA witnesses only testified about what they thought "ratification" meant. They did not suggest the

Borough's negotiators had agreed with that interpretation. In fact, the parties did not discuss the meaning of the word "ratification". Saydah, Saunders, Lustig, and even Logan, explained that the Borough's ratification procedure required a vote at a public meeting. The PBA did not rebutt their testimony.

The Council members' use of the word "ratification" in reference to their December 12 closed session meeting, and Logan's failure to react to the use of the word "ratified" in C-1E did not convert the consensus approval into a "ratification". The PBA cannot obtain through some Council members' careless use of a word, or through its attorney's non-reaction to a word, a result which it failed to clearly and unequivocally obtain through the negotiations process.

These facts and the result are not unlike those in City of Hoboken. In Hoboken the City began paying salary increases called for in its tentative agreement pending the City Council's ratification vote. Those payments did not negate the need-or substitute-for a Council vote, nor create an obligation to continue paying those increases subsequent to the Council's rejection of the agreement.

Finally, the PBA's rationale that "ratification" simply means approval misses the point. No one disputes that the words "ratify" or "ratification" can be defined as an approval. But the issue here is not how the Borough's conduct measures up to the dictionary definition of "ratification"; the issue is what

ratification means for the Borough in light of its experience in the negotiations process.

Since the evidence shows the Borough believed its ratification meant a formal vote, and the PBA believed the Borough's ratification meant a mere consensus approval, the parties did not reach a meeting of the minds over whether a final agreement was reached. Compare, North Caldwell Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 90-92, 16 NJPER 261 (¶21110 1990); Trenton Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 88-49, 13 NJPER 848 (¶18327 1987); Long Branch Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 86-97, 12 NJPER 204 (¶17080 1986).

Having reached that result, and since the Borough did not submit the agreement to a formal Council vote, I conclude it did not ratify C-1D and, therefore, was not obligated to sign the collective agreement. Consequently, the 5.4(a)(6) allegation, and the 5.4(a)(5) allegation to the extent it alleged the Borough engaged in bad faith by denying it ratified the agreement should, therefore, be dismissed. See City of Hoboken.

The Borough's Compliance With

Its Ratification Procedure

The above discussion, however, does not end the analysis of this case. The Borough violated subsection 5.4(a)(5) of the Act by failing to take C-1D through its ratification process. The Borough specifically violated subsection 5.4(a)(5) by presenting C-1D to a second work session meeting before first submitting it to the Council at a public meeting for a vote on a salary ordinance; by

Saunders not supporting C-1D at the second work session; and by withdrawing or rescinding its initial consensus approval.

Once its authorized negotiators signed C-1D, the Borough was obligated to allow the memorandum to proceed through its ratification process without a substantial deviation. In the first step of that process, the Council could have rejected the memorandum in its work session and its ratification process would have been completed-with the memorandum having been rejected. But the Council did not reject the memorandum. Having given its consensus approval on December 12, 1995, the Borough was obligated to present the memorandum to the Council in an open public meeting for a vote on a salary ordinance. The Council would have had the opportunity to formally reject the agreement at that point. But the Borough did not have the right to rescind its original consensus approval, particularly by one of its negotiators withdrawing his support for the agreement. Negotiating team members who sign a memorandum of agreement and agree to recommend ratification are obligated to continue supporting the agreement throughout the ratification process. Borough of Sayreville, P.E.R.C. No. 93-35, 19 NJPER 1 (¶24000 1992); Lower Twp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 78-32, 4 NJPER 24 (¶4013 1977).

Accordingly, based upon the above facts and analysis, I make the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Borough did not violate subsection 5.4(a)(6) of the Act by refusing to sign a new collective agreement (CP-2).

2. The Borough violated subsection 5.4(a)(5) and derivatively 5.4(a)(1) of the Act by failing to present the tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote in a public session meeting; presenting the agreement to a second work session meeting before it proceeded to a public vote; rescinding its initial consensus approval; and, by its negotiator failing to support the agreement.

Remedy

I recommend that the Borough Council be required to consider the tentative agreement in an open public meeting and vote whether to approve or reject a salary ordinance implementing the terms of the agreement. Since, Councilwoman Saydah signed C-1D and is still on the Council, she is required to continue to support the agreement.

I further recommend that in the event the Borough rejects the agreement/salary ordinance, the Borough be required - if the PBA so requests - to proceed with the processing of IA-96-60 upon its reactivation by the Director of Arbitration, thereby allowing the PBA to pursue its interest arbitration petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16 et seq; L. 1977, c. 85, §3, eff. May 10, 1977; the law that was in effect when the petition was filed. The PBA withdrew IA-96-60 in December 1995 in a good faith belief that the agreement

had been ratified by the Borough. Had the PBA known that C-1D was not ratified by the Borough on December 12 it would not have withdrawn the petition. If the Borough rejects the agreement, fundamental fairness necessitates that the PBA be allowed to resume the processing of the petition as it would have if the petition was not mistakenly withdrawn.

The PBA's request for attorney fees is denied. Commercial Tp. Bd. of Ed. and Commercial Tp. Support Staff Ass'n and Collingswood, P.E.R.C. No. 83-25, 8 NJPER 550 (¶13253 1982) aff'd 10 NJPER 78 (¶15043 App. Div. 1983).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

I recommend the Commission ORDER:

A. That the Borough of Tenafly cease and desist from:

1.	Interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by failing to present the Borough/PBA tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote in a public session meeting; presenting the agreement to a second work session meeting before it proceeded to a public vote; rescinding its initial consensus approval; and, by its negotiator failing to support the agreement.

2. Refusing to negotiate in good faith with the PBA concerning terms and conditions of employment of unit employees, particularly by failing to present the Borough/PBA tentative

agreement to the Borough Council for a vote in a public session meeting; presenting the agreement to a second work session meeting before it proceeded to a public vote; rescinding its initial consensus approval; and, by its negotiator failing to support the agreement.

B. That the Borough take the following action:

1. Present the Borough/PBA tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote at an open public meeting to approve or reject the agreement.

2. Notify Councilwoman Saydah (and any other sitting councilperson who signed the tentative agreement) she is required to support the agreement with her vote at the public meeting.

3. Proceed to interest arbitration under IA-96-60, at the PBA's request, if the Borough Council rejects the agreement.

4. Post in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked as Appendix "A." Copies of such notice on forms to be provided by the Commission shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other materials.

4.	Notify the Chair of the Commission within twenty (20) days of receipt what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.

C. That the 5.4(a)(6) allegation be dismissed.

Arnold H. Zudick

Hearing Examiner

Dated: July 16, 1997

Trenton, New Jersey

WE WILL cease and desist from interfering with, restraining or coercing our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act, particularly by failing to present the Borough/PBA tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote in a public session meeting; presenting the agreement to a second work session meeting before it proceeded to a public vote; rescinding its initial consensus approval; and, by its negotiator failing to support the agreement.

WE WILL cease and desist from refusing to negotiate in good faith with the PBA concerning terms and conditions of employment of unit employees, particularly by failing to present the Borough/PBA tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote in a public session meeting; presenting the agreement to a second work session meeting before it proceeded to a public vote; rescinding its initial consensus approval; and, by its negotiator failing to support the agreement.

WE WILL present the Borough/PBA tentative agreement to the Borough Council for a vote at an open public meeting to approve or reject the agreement.

WE WILL notify Councilwoman Saydah (and any other sitting councilperson who signed the tentative agreement) she is required to support the agreement with her vote at the public meeting.

WE WILL proceed to interest arbitration under IA-96-60, at the PBA's request, if the Borough Council rejects the agreement.