IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY OF HUDSON AND HUDSON COUNTY PBA LOCAL 334 (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0342-20
IN THE MATTER OF COUNTY
OF HUDSON AND HUDSON
COUNTY PBA LOCAL 334
Submitted May 19, 2022 – Decided June 16, 2022
Before Judges Haas and Alvarez.
On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment
Relations Commission, PERC Nos. 2020-55 and 2021-5.
Juan Mendoza, appellant pro se.
Christine Lucarelli, General Counsel, attorney for
respondent New Jersey Public Employment Relations
Commission (Frank C. Kanther, Deputy General
Counsel, on the brief).
Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, attorneys for
respondent County of Hudson (Cindy Nan Vogelman,
of counsel and on the brief; Priscilla E. Savage, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Juan Mendoza appeals an August 13, 2020 final agency decision of the
State of New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) denying
reconsideration of an earlier decision granting summary judgment to Hudson
County. PERC also affirmed the denial of a cross-motion filed by Hudson
County Police Benevolent Association (PBA), Local 334. We now affirm.
Mendoza worked as a Hudson County sheriff's officer beginning in 1999,
and belonged to the Hudson County PBA. On May 14, 2018, he was transferred
from the Detective Bureau to the Cyber Crimes Unit. He had unsuccessfully
asked for this transfer in 2015. Upon reassignment, his name initially remained
on certain lists for overtime offered to detectives. On June 25, 2018, Mendoza
was removed from the overtime lists for early start trips, late trips, and child
support/criminal raids. In the Cyber Crimes Unit, Mendoza can only request
overtime assignments if no one in the Detective Bureau is available. Mendoza
was removed from the extradition assignment list on August 21, 2018.
On November 30, 2018, Hudson County PBA Local 334 filed an unfair
practice charge (UPC) against the County, alleging that by transferring Mendoza
and removing him from the lists, the County violated the New Jersey Employer-
Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -64, specifically subsections
5.4(a)(1) and (3). Mendoza has been an active leader in his union for years, and
represented many members in various actions against the Department and the
County.
A-0342-20
2
PERC's initial May 28, 2020 decision, and its August 13, 2020 denial of
reconsideration, found the PBA's UPC regarding Mendoza's transfer untimely.
N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c) states: "no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair
practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge . . . ."
No exception applied. As Mendoza's transfer occurred May 14, 2018, the
November 30, 2018 union filing was not timely.
The portion of the UPC related to Mendoza's removal from overtime lists
was, however, timely. As to that claim, PERC decided that removing Mendoza's
name was not retaliation, but rather a step taken in compliance with existing
collective negotiated agreements (CNA). Detectives have contractual priority
in being offered overtime from both lists. In fact, the PBA itself initially
requested that the County limit Mendoza's overtime opportunities in light of the
CNAs in effect and past practice.
Neither the County nor the PBA appealed PERC's August 13, 2020
decision. On September 28, 2020, Mendoza individually filed this appeal. On
July 29, 2021, PERC filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Mendoza had no
standing to pursue the matter. That application was denied without prejudice
pending the decision of the merits panel.
A-0342-20
3
Mendoza's points of error include claims that the individuals who made
the administrative decisions to remove him from the overtime lists all had
conflicts of interest. He states the following:
POINT I
THE RESPONDENTS AND PERC FAILED TO
DISCLOSE AND CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (UFLP) CASES
PENDING IN PERC, SUCH AS PERC CO-2019-100,
THIS UFLP WAS FILED UNDER MY DIRECTION
ON LABOR LAW AND WORKER'S
COMPENSATION LAW VIOLATIONS ENFORCED
BY LT. ROLON. THE DISCLOSURE AND
INCLUSION OF THIS UFLP WOULD HAVE
DISPLAYED A TIMELINE OF SEVERAL
EXTRADITIONS WHICH LED UP TO MY
TRANSFER AND REMOVAL FROM THE
EXTRADITION OVERTIME LIST THAT WOULD
HAVE AFFECTED THE PERC DECISIONS.
POINT II
THE NON-DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL
INTERNAL UNION ACTIONS RELATING TO THE
UFLP CHARGE THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE
SIX-MONTHS.
POINT III
THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE VARIOUS CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST THAT EXISTED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES IN THE UFLP.
A-0342-20
4
POINT IV
IN THE PERC DECISIONS, PERC COMMISSIONER
PAPERO'S POSITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN
REPLACED WITH ANOTHER COMMISSIONER
AND THE VACANT COMMISSIONER POSITION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILLED.
POINT V
RESPONDENTS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT EXISTED
BETWEEN THE APPELLATE AND
UNDERSHERIFF CONTI IN RELATION TO
[FILED] COMPLAINTS ON UNION RETALIATION.
POINT VI
THE DECISION OF THE TRANSFER AND THE
REMOVAL FROM THE EXTRADITION
OVERTIME LIST AFTER DISCLOSURES OF LAW
VIOLATIONS AND UNION ACTIVITIES
VIOLATED N.J.A.C. 4A:2-5.1.
POINT VII
ON JULY 29, 2021, A MOTION TO DISMISS WAS
[FILED] BY PERC TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATING AS A NON-PARTY, [MENDOZA]
COULD NOT PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL.
In his reply brief, he adds the following points of error:
A-0342-20
5
POINT I
ON NOVEMBER 30, 2021, THE PERC
COMMISSION FILED A LETTER BRIEF WITH THE
APPELLATE DIVISION REQUESTING THE
APPEAL TO BE DISMISSED CLAIMING
[MENDOZA] WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE
COMMISSION DECISION.
POINT II
HEARING OFFICER CONFUSED THE OVERTIME
DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT AND
CRIMINAL RAIDS (WARRANT EXECUTIONS)
PAST PRACTICE WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED
IN THE AGENCY THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO
ALL DETECTIVES.
POINT III
THE RETALIATION CLAIMS ON THE DECISIONS
[WERE] NOT PROPERLY INVESTIGATED BY THE
INITIAL HEARING OFFICER OR THE PERC
COMMISSION TO PROPERLY . . . DECIDE ON
RETALIATION.
POINT IV
THE PERC COMMISSION DID NOT PROPERLY
APPLY THE BRIDGEWATER[1] STANDARDS IN
THE DECISIONS.
POINT V
THE HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY APPLIED
A REQUEST TO CONDUCT CJIS TRAININGS FOR
1
In re Bridgewater Twp., 95 N.J. 235 (1984).
A-0342-20
6
THE COURT BUREAU PERSONNEL AND . . .
FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ACTUAL
TRANSFER DATE AND REMOVAL FROM
OVERTIME LIST.
POINT VI
THE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF WAS SERVED LATE
TO THE APPELLATE ON DECEMBER 7, 2021, THE
RESPONDENT[']S BRIEF SHOULD BE
PRECLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE
APPEAL BASED ON APPELLATE DIVISION
SCHEDULING ORDER AND [RULE] 1:3-3.
The appeal must be dismissed because Mendoza lacks standing. The UPC
charge was brought by the union against a municipal entity. See N.J.A.C. 19:14-
1.1 and 1.2. Since Mendoza was not a party to the prior proceedings, he lacks
authority to appeal the outcome. Cf. Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, 413 N.J.
Super. 135, 163 (App. Div. 2010) ("Ordinarily, a litigant may not claim standing
to assert the rights of third parties.") (citation omitted).
Even if he did have standing, Mendoza falls woefully short of the high bar
he must vault in order to prevail. The scope of judicial review of PERC's factual
determinations is quite limited. See Bridgewater Twp., 95 N.J. at 245. "The
evaluation of the evidence is assigned to PERC, not to us." Ibid. Similarly, in
determining whether a UPC was established, and whether PERC's review of a
UPC is legally sustainable, our scope of review is limited. Bridgewater Twp.,
A-0342-20
7
95 N.J. at 244. The agency's interpretation of the statute is entitled to great
deference. Ibid.Nothing in the record suggests that the decision was arbitrary or
capricious. The challenge to the transfer was out of time. Mendoza's removal
from the overtime lists merely brought the County and the Sheriff's Department
into compliance with previously negotiated contracts. Thus, PERC decided the
matter correctly on the merits.
In Mendoza's last paragraph of his initial brief, he requests the matter be
transferred to the Office of Administrative Law or the Supreme Court, since he
claims there is a conflict with "civil service employees." Such transfer is not a
valid procedural alternative. Similarly, Mendoza's request that the matter be
referred to the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General is without foundation.
We find Mendoza's arguments so lacking in merit that they do not require further
discussion in a written decision. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0342-20
8