New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Arpaia & Crivelli Law Firm : Police, Firefighters, Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation : New Jersey

I am pleased to announce that the New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog was recently featured as the "blawg of the day" on Inter-Alia, An Internet Legal Research Weblog, amongst other things.  Inter-Alia is authored by Tom Mighell.  Tom is the author of The Lawyer's Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies: Smart Ways to Work Together.  The book is published by the American Bar Association Law Practice Management Section. 

Tom is senior counsel and Litigation Technology support coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. He is a frequent speaker and writer on the Internet, and has published the Internet Legal Research Weekly newsletter since 2000 and the Internet and technology blog Inter Alia since 2002. He is a member of the ABA TECHSHOW Planning Board, and currently serves as chair of ABA TECHSHOW 2008. 
 

I want to thank Tom for the recognition and state that I am grateful that our work in educating Public Safety Officers as to their legal rights in the Garden State has not gone unnoticed.  I also want to thank everyone who visits our blog on a routine basis to learn about the laws that affect Police Officers, Corrections Officers and Firefighters in the state of New Jersey.

Once Again--Thank You

Frank M. Crivelli, Esq.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the case entitled, In The Matter of Poplawski, 33-2-0649, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division rendered a decision that upheld the New Jersey Department of Personnel, Merit System Board's decision that the removal of the Appellant's name from a promotional list was proper due to his past disciplinary history.  Poplawski appealed his employer's action of removing his name from a promotional list due to his alleged adverse employment history.  Poplawski's employment history included two adverse actions that resulted in suspensions from employment due to charges centering around N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3 (a) 6, conduct unbecoming a public employee.  Both of the charges that resulted in suspension were disposed of by way of settlement agreement.  The Appellate Division held that the Merit System Board's actions were not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable due to the fact that the Appellant had actually agreed with the disposal of the disciplinary charges by a settlement and based upon the same, the action's of the board were upheld.

It is important to remember that the disposal of discipline by way of a settlement agreement may seem like a good idea when you are staring down the charges.  However, settlement agreements can have repercussions concerning promotion from a civil service list of eligibles.  Thus, if at all possible, when disposing of charges by way of settlement agreement, a clause that states that the discipline can not be used against the employee for promotion should be included.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the case of Leek v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, 33-2-0497, a Senior Corrections Officer appealed the New Jersey Department of Personnel, Merit System Board's decision to uphold the Department's issuance of a thirty (30) day suspension for violation of the Department's internal rules and regulations and conduct unbecoming a public employee.  The case revolved around the conduct of Leek who repeatedly attended court hearings in uniform with a criminal defendant that was free on bail but had previously been a county jail inmate.  Leek further wrote a letter that identified himself as a Senior Corrections Officer and asked for leniency on behalf of the defendant. 

In defense of his actions Leek stated that he was acting in his capacity as an ordained minister and spiritual adviser on behalf of the inmate.  Leek never informed the Department or his superiors of his conduct and failed to request permission to appear on behalf of a defendant facing criminal charges in a New Jersey Court of Law.

Despite Leeks arguments that were based on his First Amendment rights, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division agreed with the Merit System Board that upheld the thirty day suspension imposed by the New Jersey Department of Corrections.  In summary, while Public Safety Officers do garner protections under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, they can not call upon these protections when their actions are detrimental to their employer, public perception, and their sworn law enforcement duties. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

          Achieving the desired level of discipline within a law enforcement unit is among the most important responsibilities of the law enforcement executive, and the governing body. Yet this is one of the most frequently neglected processes within many law enforcement agencies. This will be first of a series of Blog posts that concentrate on the public employee disciplinary process as promulgated by the New Jersey Department of Personnel under Title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Having a firm grasp of the disciplinary process is critical to the well being of all Public Safety Officers. Please take your time in reading these posts as they pertain directly to the security of your employment and the means that you support yourself and your families.

          The word “discipline” was originally defined by the courts as “instruction”, “teaching” or “training”. However, its meaning and the use of discipline has shifted toward a concept of control through punishment. This emphasis on control has resulted in discipline being viewed as a negative threat to employment rather than a mechanism for remediation and improvement. Too frequently rules of conduct and disciplinary procedures are used as an end in themselves, and their purpose in reaching departmental goals is forgotten.

          Focusing on the negative aspects of discipline diminishes morale and productivity. The first step that should be used toward positive discipline is to emphasize instruction and de-emphasize control. This requires the law enforcement executive to focus on organizational practices. Unfortunately in today’s world of public employment, this is rarely the case.

          In exercising appropriate discipline, the executive must first define the goals and objectives of the agency's units, and then announce management's expectations to guide the units toward the realization of those goals. The law enforcement executive must establish a means to monitor performance and to correct improper actions. This approach to management as it relates to discipline insures that all subordinates know and understand what must be done, why it must be done, how it must be done, and when it must be done.

          Employees must be clearly told what constitutes satisfactory performance, non-satisfactory performance, and how non satisfactory performance can lead to appropriate discipline. In addition, supervisors and managers must know when and how to take necessary corrective action. To achieve these goals, management must establish workable procedures for documenting all expectations and advising individuals of their duties and responsibilities.

          There are numerous levels of discipline under the rules and regulations of the New Jersey Department of Personnel to include:

• Official Written Reprimand;
• Fine;
• Minor Suspension (1 to 5 days);
• Major Suspension (6 to 180 days); and
• Termination

          In our next post we will discuss the various levels of discipline that is recognized under 4A, and the concept of progressive discipline under the New Jersey Administrative Code.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division, Superior Court of New Jersey upheld the decision of the Merit System Board, New Jersey Department of Personnel, that the appellant's failure to file his appeal of the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action within twenty (20) days from the issuance of the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action barred him from appealing said charges on any level. 

In the Matter of Santiago, New Jersey Department of Corrections, 25-2-1072, App. Div., the Appellant was employed by the New Jersey Department of Corrections as a Senior Corrections Officer.  The Appellant waived his Departmental or Agency Hearing pertaining to the Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action that charged him with conduct unbecoming a public employee.  His attorney requested the issuance of a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action subsequent to the waiver however the Appellant claimed that he never received said final notice despite the contentions of the New Jersey Department of Corrections that the same was issued.  Appellant waited five (5) months prior to pursuing the appeal and the Merit System Board refused to accept the appeal and transmit the case to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law for a De Novo hearing.

The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Merit System Board stating that the Appellant's delay of five (5) months in issuing his appeal was well beyond the allotted twenty (20) day period and his removal from employment was upheld.

The bottom line is that it is the employee's responsibility to ensure that his or her appeal of any major disciplinary action is perfected within 20 days of the issuance of the Final Notice of disciplinary Action.  Excuses such as the one offered by Santiago where five (5 ) months lapse before an appeal is filed will not be accepted nor recognized by the Courts.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the second entry drafted by Michael P. DeRose concerning the utilization and implementation of Weingarten rights by New Jersey Public Safety Officers.

Subsequent to the invocation of Weingarten Rights by a New Jersey Public Safety Officer, the supervising authority conducting the interview must:

• cease questioning until the union representative arrives;
• cancel or postpone the interview; or
• inform the subject of the interview that the interview will be called off unless the subject voluntarily waives his or her right to union representation.

In this situation, the union representative serves many vital functions when present at an investigatory interview. First and foremost, the union representative is to meet and speak privately with the officer or first responder subject to the interview prior to its commencement. It is at this meeting coupled with information gathered from administration that the union representative should ascertain the charges against the union member and advise he or she how to answer questions posed by the authority conducting the interview. It is important to remember that under Weingarten the interviewing party must advise the union representative of the purpose and subject of the investigatory interview.

The union representative may also object to questions or tactics he/ she deems inappropriate or coercive that are utilized by the individual conducting the interview. Finally, at the conclusion of the interview, the union representative can offer mitigating circumstances to the employer or the authority conducting the interview, investigate leads, offer information to support the interviewee’s case and question the interviewee to either clear up information that has been provided or provide new information if needed.

Under Weingarten, the functions of the union representative at the investigatory interview does not exceed those set forth above. The union representative cannot dictate verbatim how the officer or first responder should answer questions posed in the interview. The representative can make assertions regarding the investigation; however, the authority conducting the interview has no obligation to take note of these assertions and can in fact ignore them. Furthermore, the authority conducting the investigatory interview has no duty to bargain with the union representative concerning any aspect of the investigation.

In conclusion, the single most important element for any New Jersey Public Safety Officer to retain pursuant to reviewing this blogosphere article is the importance of invoking one’s rights under NLRB v. Weingarten. The invocation of one’s Weingarten rights should be as follows:

• “If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I request that my union representative be present at this meeting.
• Without representation, I choose not to answer any questions.
• This is my right under a Supreme Court decision called N.L.R.B. v. Weingarten.”

The Law Offices of Arpaia & Crivelli, L.L.C. has had durable plastic cards constructed that contain a Public Safety Officer’s Weingarten Rights. These cards are the exact size of a credit card and should be carried in the wallet or billfold of every New Jersey Public Safety Officer at all times. These cards are free of charge to any Public Safety Officer that would like to ensure that they are protecting their rights. You can obtain a card for yourself or your entire department by calling 609-890-1900. Take advantage of this offer. There are not too many things that are free any longer in today’s world.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This particular post was drafted by Michael P. DeRose. As stated in a previous post, Michael is a paralegal employed with the Law Offices of Arpaia & Crivelli, L.L.C. Michael will be leaving the office in August, 2008, for purposes of attending Law School in Michigan. While we are very sad to see him leave, we are excited that he has the opportunity to further his education and pursue his dream of becoming attorney. We look forward to his return as a law clerk in the summer of 2009, and truly wish him the very best in law school. 

This is the first of two posts centered on the case of NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975).

The brave men and women who comprise the long list of New Jersey Public Safety Officers should maintain a solid foundation of knowledge in regard to the rights they possess within the institutions where they are employed. As such, a brief discussion of Weingarten Rights is in order.

The United States’ Supreme Court case known as NLRB v. Weingarten solidified the notion that unionized employees possess the right to obtain union representation during investigatory interviews. This principle applies to both private employee collective bargaining units and public employee collective bargaining units. “Investigatory interviews” as defined under Weingarten can pertain to criminal issues or departmental matters which may lead to discipline. However the invocation of Weingarten rights only applies to investigatory interviews conducted by a supervising authority within the organization where the subject of the interview is employed.  

In particular to Public Safety Officers, investigatory interviews are regularly conducted by agents of an Internal Affairs Department or the Special Investigations Division of their respective organizations. Simply stated, an investigatory interview occurs when a supervising or investigatory authority questions a subordinate to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline. The supervising authority is also engaged in conducting an investigatory interview when they ask a subordinate to defend his or her conduct in a formal setting. Weingarten rights only apply to NJ Public Safety Officers who face the possibility of undergoing an investigatory interview.

It is both necessary and essential for law enforcement personnel and first responders to detect when a potential interview qualifies as “investigatory.” An important question to ask one’s self when uncertain of whether the interview is “investigatory” is: “could this interview or its fruits possibly lead to disciplinary action?” If the Public Safety Officer being questioned reasonably believes that the answer to this question is yes, he or she is entitled to have union representation present at the meeting before a question is posed. Also, it is important to note that the supervising authority conducting the investigatory interview is not compelled to advise the subject of his or her Weingarten rights. This is a common misconception that merits mention. It is the responsibility of the Public Safety Officer being questioned to invoke Weingarten to ensure representation is present during the investigatory interview. In the next post we will discuss Weingarten in more detail, and the effect of invoking the rights during an investigatory interview.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week we spoke about medical benefits in the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation System. In this entry we will give a brief overview regarding total permanent disability benefits, and partial total disability benefits.

The third type of benefit that an injured worker is entitled to receive under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act is commonly referred to as total permanent disability benefits and/or partial total disability benefits. Total permanent disability benefits are reserved for the injured worker that has been declared permanently disabled and is unable to return to work. Partial total disability benefits are benefits that are paid for injuries that have not rendered the employee totally disabled.

Permanent and partial total disability benefits are often a one-time lump sum payment, or bi-weekly payments that an injured employee will receive at the end of his or her workers’ compensation case. The amount of money that the injured employee will receive is based upon a statutory schedule established by The New Jersey State Legislature and is particular to the severity of the injury, and the injury to the particular body part.

The benefits associated with permanent and partial total disability are based on a weekly compensation system. The seriousness of the disability is taken into consideration in awarding permanent and partial total disability benefits. The more serious the injury, the greater the award an injured worker can expect to receive. The benefits paid as a result of receiving permanent and partial total disability benefits are not subject to taxation by either the State or Federal Government. Furthermore, attorney’s fees associated for representation in a New Jersey workers’ compensation case are deducted from an award of permanent and partial total disability benefits. Additionally, certain expenses that an attorney expends in representing an injured worker are also deducted from the award of permanent and partial total disability benefits. 

It is important to remember that if a public safety officer is declared totally disabled and is going to collect an ordinary disability pension, there will be a monetary offset for the pension award in regard to the money received for total and/or partial disability benefits under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation System. Furthermore, if the public safety officer is awarded accidental disability benefits, the workers’ compensation permanent and/or partial disability award will be negated in its entirety.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We haven’t spoken about the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation system in a little while and there is still a great amount of information regarding the available benefits that all public safety officers and first responders should be made aware of. With that being said, let’s talk a little about medical benefits under the New Jersey Workers Compensation Act. 

Under the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation system, the injured employee is entitled to reasonable and necessary medical treatment to cure and relieve the effects of the injury, illness, or condition that occurred either on the job or as a result of the job. In New Jersey, due to the fact that the employer is responsible for payment of 100% of the injured worker’s medical treatment associated with the workplace injury, the employer has the right and ability to control treatment. What this means, is that the employer or the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier will select the doctors that will treat the injured worker for his or her injury. 

When the injured worker is treated by medical physicians that have been chosen by the employer or the employer’s insurance company, this treatment is commonly referred to as “Authorized Treatment”. However, if the injured employee receives treatment for his or her workplace injuries from physicians, doctors, or hospitals that have not been chosen or authorized by the employer or the employer’s insurance company, this particular treatment is referred to as “Unauthorized Treatment”. 

The New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act only requires employers to make payment for “authorized treatment” in a New Jersey workers’ compensation case. Therefore, should an injured employee obtain treatment from physicians or medical providers that have not been chosen by their employer or their employer’s insurance company, he or she may be responsible for paying these medical bills out of his or her own pocket.

It is important for an injured employee to understand that the only medical treatment that has to be provided under The New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act is treatment that is medically necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the injury or condition. Palliative medical treatment does not have to be provided by the employer. Palliative medical care has been described as medical care or treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of pain associated with the injury, rather than halting or delaying the progression of the injury itself. To clarify, palliative medical treatment is care that provides pain relief only. It is not medical care or treatment that will improve the medical condition of the injured worker.

Medical treatment under the New Jersey Workers Compensation Act must continue until one of two events occurs; the employee is returned to work, or in the alternative, a doctor declares that the employee has reached maximum medical improvement or “MMI”. When one of these two events occurs, medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits will cease, and the injured employee’s claim will move to the establishment of a permanent disability rating and thus the settlement of the case. We will discuss permanent disability and partial total disability in a later entry.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks