New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 73
New Jersey Supreme Court
696 A.2d 585 (1997)
Facts
The New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (the act) permitted most public employees to unionize, but supervisors who could hire, discharge, discipline, or recommend such actions could not join bargaining units with nonsupervisory employees. When the state legislature attempted to amend the statute in 1972, the governor conditionally vetoed the bill and proposed to broaden the definition of public employee-supervisors who should be excluded from organizing to bring the definition in line with the private-sector definition. The legislature rejected the proposal and continued to permit supervisors to organize, except for elected officials, members of boards and commissions, managerial executives, and confidential employees. When a group of higher-level supervisory employees of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (plaintiff) were certified for membership in the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 73 (defendant), the turnpike authority successfully appealed the certification in the New Jersey Superior Court. The court found that only lower-level supervisors at public employers were permitted to organize under the act. AFSCME appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stein, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
