Over the last thirty years, the New Jersey courts have resolved many disputes, including labor disputes involving the DRBA. SeeInternational Org., supra, 45 N.J. 138, 211 A.2d 789 (affirming lower court's order enjoining DRBA employees and their union representatives from striking or otherwise picketing); Delaware River Bay Authority v. New Jersey Pub. EmploymentRelations Comm'n ("PERC"), 112 N.J. Super. 160, 270 A.2d 704 (App.Div. 1970) (denying Public Employment Relations Commission's authority to order DRBA to collectively negotiate with union absent compact provision conferring such jurisdiction; pending case in Delaware court voluntarily stayed pending outcome of New Jersey appeal); aff'd, 58 N.J. 388, 277 A.2d 880 (1971); Gauntt Constr. Co./Lott Electric Co. v. Delaware River Bay Auth., 241 N.J. Super. 310, 314-15, 575 A.2d 13 (App.Div. 1990) (acknowledging that Article XV of Compact provides courts of Delaware and New Jersey with concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims involving DRBA). We see no reason to reach a different result in the present case.
Hence, the applicability of state laws to a bi-state is determined by examining the language of the Compact. See, e.g., Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Ass'n v. Camden, 111 N.J. 389, 545 A.2d 127 (1988); Bell v. Bell, 83 N.J. 417, 416 A.2d 829 (1980); Delaware River Ray Auth. v. New Jersey Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n, 112 N.J. Super. 160, 270 A.2d 704 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd, 58 N.J. 388, 277 A.2d 880 (1971). There no provision in the present Compact which directly addresses which laws of the respective states are applicable to the Port Authority.
"It requires no elaborate argument to reject the suggestion that an agreement solemnly entered into between States by those who alone have political authority to speak for a State can be unilaterally nullified, or given final meaning by an organ of one of the contracting States." See also: C.T. Hellmuth v. Washington Metro Area Trans., 414 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.Md. 1976); Rao v. Port of New York Authority, 122 F. Supp. 595 (E.D.N.Y. 1954); Delaware River B. Auth. v. New Jersey, 112 N.J. Super. 160, 270 A.2d 704 (1970); Brown v. Bowles, 254 Md. 377, 254 A.2d 696 (1969). Therefore the Court concludes that the California Political Reform Act does not provide a basis to invalidate the actions of TRPA in its approval of the Sahara project, and consequently the Court will not, on that basis, invalidate TRPA's approval.
The act's restrictive approach demonstrates its inapplicability to tort claims against DRPA. A similar situation arose in Del. Riv. Bay Auth. v. N.J.Pub. Emp. Rel. Com., 112 N.J. Super. 160 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd o.b., 58 N.J. 388 (1971). Subsequent to the creation of plaintiff authority, a bi-state agency of the States of New Jersey and Delaware, New Jersey enacted its Employer-Employee Relations Act. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. Pursuant to that act, a number of unions filed petitions with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) seeking to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for various employee units of the Authority. PERC accepted jurisdiction and directed that notices of election be posted.
"To sanction such practice would lead to discord and a destruction of the purposes for which such bi[]state agencies are formed." Delaware River Bay Authority v. New Jersey Public Employment Relations Comm'n, 112 N.J. Super. 160, 166, 175, 270 A.2d 704, 707 (1970). "[T]he unilateral imposition of additional duties on [a compact clause entity] * * * is impermissible absent express authorization in the compact or joint legislation by the two creator states."
Indeed, even though the Uniform Construction Code reviewed in EPVA stated that it applied to all bi-state agencies, our Supreme Court found the expression of such intent by one legislature to be insufficient in the absence of laws specifying that both states intended that local law would govern an area relevant to their compact. Id. at 401-02; see also Del. River & Bay Auth. v. N.J. Pub. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 112 N.J. Super. 160, 165-66 (App. Div. 1970), aff'd, 58 N.J. 388 (1971); Fraternal Order of Police, Penn-Jersey Lodge 30 v. Del. River Port Auth., 323 N.J. Super. 444, 454 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 663 (1999); King, supra, 909 F. Supp. at 945.
In addition, the Appellate Division had previously ruled that New Jersey's Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) did not have jurisdiction over the DRBA. Delaware River Bay Auth. v. New Jersey Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n (PERC), 112 N.J. Super. 160, 166 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd o.b., 58 N.J. 388 (1971). Nevertheless, the Court in Local 68 granted the right to recognition and collective negotiation following the provisions of the New Jersey and Delaware statutes governing collective negotiations for public employees, neither of which specified that it applied to defendant, and concluded that, "although not identical," they were "complementary and parallel."
Id. at 424, 416 A.2d 829. In reaching its decision, Bell adopted our rationale in Delaware River Bay Auth. v. New Jersey Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n., 112 N.J. Super. 160, 270 A.2d 704 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd o.b., 58 N.J. 388, 277 A.2d 880 (1971). There, we stated that to allow one state to regulate a bi-state agency would destroy the purpose of the agency.
Id. at 424, 416 A.2d 829. Similarly, in Delaware River Bay Auth. v. New Jersey Pub. Employment Relations Comm'n, 112 N.J. Super. 160, 270 A.2d 704 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd o.b., 58 N.J. 388, 277 A.2d 880 (1971), New Jersey enacted its Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq., subsequent to the creation of the plaintiff authority, a bi-state agency of New Jersey and Delaware. There, we held that New Jersey could not unilaterally vest the Public Employment Relations Commission with jurisdiction over the bi-state agency in violation of the compact which made no provision for such jurisdiction.
Bi-state agencies exist by virtue of compacts between states, entered into by their legislatures with the approval of Congress. Del. Riv. Bay Auth. v. N.J. Pub. Emp. Rel. Com., 112 N.J. Super. 160, 165 (App.Div. 1970), aff'd o.b., 58 N.J. 388 (1971). Once established, the agency is a single agency of the governments of both states.