Local 195, IFPTE v. State of New Jersey
New Jersey Supreme Court
88 N.J. 393, 443 A.2d 187 (1982)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Local 195 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO (Local 195) (plaintiff) and the State of New Jersey (the state) (defendant) were bargaining over new contract terms. Their existing contract provided that the state would meet with Local 195 “to discuss all incidences of contracting or subcontracting whenever it becomes apparent that a layoff or job displacement would result.” The state and Local 195 jointly petitioned the New Jersey Public Employer Relations Committee (PERC) for a scope-of-negotiations determination as to whether negotiations had to cover clauses limiting contracting and subcontracting. PERC decided subcontracting was negotiable under its previous decisions because deciding to subcontract would effectively terminate bargaining-unit employees and have a “cataclysmic effect on wages, hours, and working conditions. The appellate court reversed, holding that subcontracting work was an inherently managerial prerogative. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority failed to consider public employees’ interest and that subcontracting required bargaining. Because of the dissent, the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case on appeal as of right.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pashman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.