Del. Riv. Bay Auth. v. N.J. Pub. Emp. rel Com

24 Citing cases

  1. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 68 v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

    147 N.J. 433 (N.J. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Finding substantially similar laws concerning collective bargaining negotiations in New Jersey and Delaware to be effective modification of compact requiring defendant DRBA to negotiate collectively with employees

    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.

  2. King v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

    909 F. Supp. 938 (D.N.J. 1995)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that "[s]ince neither of these situations is present, LAD may not be applied to the Port Authority"

    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.

  3. Cal. Tahoe Regional Planning v. Sahara Tahoe Corp.

    504 F. Supp. 753 (D. Nev. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting "claim that TRPA is federal agency within the meaning of NEPA" and holding that "the better case authority holds that TRPA is not subject to NEPA"

    "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.

  4. Bell v. Bell

    83 N.J. 417 (N.J. 1980)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that the bi-state Delaware River Port Authority is not a public entity within the New Jersey Tort Claims Act

    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.

  5. Hubble v. Bi-State Dev. Agency

    393 Ill. App. 3d 1016 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    "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."

  6. Dittrich v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

    DOCKET NO. A-1289-11T1 (App. Div. Oct. 4, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  7. Fraternal O. of Police v. Del. Riv. Port Auth

    323 N.J. Super. 444 (App. Div. 1999)   Cited 9 times
    Finding the DRPA "may be subject to complementary or parallel state legislation. . . . need not be nearly identical and specifically apply to the agency," provided the "public policy of both states, articulated in parallel statutes that are substantially similar" is complementary

    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."

  8. Ballinger v. Del. River Port Auth

    311 N.J. Super. 317 (App. Div. 1998)   Cited 26 times
    Finding significant differences between New Jersey's CEPA law and Pennsylvania's Whistle-blower law and therefore both inapplicable to DRPA

    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.

  9. Gauntt Const. v. River Bay Auth

    241 N.J. Super. 310 (App. Div. 1990)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting contention that public policy of both compacting states imposed duties on bi-state 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.

  10. Eastern Paralyzed Vets. v. Camden

    220 N.J. Super. 573 (Ch. Div. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    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.