New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

On May 19, 2009, the Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Yusef Gethers, Docket No.: A-5323-06T4. By way of background, on March 24, 2005, a Union County grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant, Yusef Gethers, with second-degree certain persons not to possess a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1). On the same date, a Union County grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (count one), and fourth-degree possession of a prohibited device, hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f). 

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Defendant pled guilty to count one of the indictment, third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain reached with the State, Defendant was sentence to five (5) years probation, conditioned upon 364 days of house arrest. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges under the indictments as well as an outstanding municipal court warrant. The trial court also imposed the appropriate fees and penalties. Thereafter, this appeal ensued when Defendant appealed the suppression ruling.

In this case, the Appellate Division determined the motion to suppress evidence obtained in a vehicular search, specifically, a gun found in a backpack not in plain view, was improperly denied by the trial judge. The Court found the State did not carry its burden of demonstrating a recognized exception to the warrant requirement where: (1) both occupants were outside the car and did not have access to the backpack; (2) there was no possibility they would leave the area; (3) the officers’ conduct did not indicate a belief the occupants were armed and dangerous; (4) there was no evidence of accomplices who might have come onto the scene or other persons who had access to the car destroying or disposing of the evidence or moving the car; (5) the car was parked in a residential driveway so there was no issue of traffic obstruction; (6) the ratio of officers to suspects was 4-to-2; and (7) the Defendant was in a wheelchair. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial judge’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 16, 2009, the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) issued a decision in response to certain unfair practice charges and requests for interim relief filed against the State of New Jersey regarding the imposition of unpaid, “furlough” days. 

By way of background, on April 14, 2009, the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (“CWA”), filed an unfair practice charge and a request for interim relief against the State of New Jersey. CWA alleged that the State committed unfair practices proscribed by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act by: (1) unilaterally imposing a reduction in the work year and compensation of employees represented by CWA by requiring them to take unpaid leave days; (2) failing to negotiate over the effects of the decision to impose involuntary unpaid leave days; and (3) conspiring with the Civil Service Commission to enact temporary layoff rules for the purpose of circumventing the State’s obligation to negotiate over staggered unpaid leave days. The charges alleged that, through these actions, the State repudiated various sections of the collective negotiations agreements it has entered into with CWA and breached its duty to negotiate over terms and conditions of employment in violation of the Employer-Employee Relations Act. Additional charges and requests for interim relief were filed between April 14 and April 29 by other employee organizations representing units of various State employees, including P.B.A. 105.

An order to show cause was executed and the return date was ultimately scheduled on May 14. Once numerous briefs, certifications, and exhibits were filed, all parties appeared on the return date.  After entertaining argument, the Commission Designee Stuart Reichman, in an extensive written opinion, denied the applications for interim relief. The Designee found that where a monetary remedy could normally be issued by the Commission in the event the furloughs were found to constitute an unfair practice, as is the case here, an injunction to prevent the institution of the furloughs is not appropriate because monetary loss does not constitute irreparable harm. As a result, the unfair practice charges will proceed in the normal course. To read the decision in its entirety, download the same from the PERC website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 14, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Harry G. Parkin v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement System, Docket No.: A-2466-07T1. In the case, Harry Parkin appealed from the final agency decision of the Board of Trustees of the Public Employee Retirement System (“Board”) resulting in the partial forfeiture of his service and salary credits. Specifically, Parkin contended that the Board failed to follow its own regulations governing partial forfeiture of pension benefits and further contended that the Board “adopted a rule regarding the partial termination of pension benefits without going through the regulatory process.” 

With the exception of a four-year break in service, from 1972 to January 1, 2004, Parkin was continuously employed in various public positions until he retired as Mercer County Chief of Staff. Based upon his veteran’s status, his service time, and additional credit he received as part of an early retirement incentive program, he had accumulated twenty-eight (28) years and nine (9) months of service credit equating to a monthly pension of $5,864.49.

On March 11, 2004, Parkin was indicted by a Federal grand jury and charged with having participated in a wide-ranging, corrupt scheme utilizing his office as Chief of Staff to defraud Mercer County and its citizens. The indictment alleged numerous acts Parkin committed in furtherance of the plan while employed as Chief of Staff. After a jury trial, in March 2005, he was convicted of all charges. In August 2005, he was sentenced to a period of ninety (90) months imprisonment.

The Board considered Parkin’s entitlement to pension benefits at its September 2005 meeting. Applying the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c), the Board determined a partial forfeiture was warranted for the period of time Parkin served as Chief of Staff, i.e., from June 1, 1994, to the date of his retirement. As a result, Parkin became ineligible for veteran retirement status and additionally lost early retirement incentives. His monthly pension was significantly reduced and he no longer qualified for lifetime medical benefits.        

Thereafter, Parkin appealed to the Office of Administrative Law, wherein he argued that the Board had arbitrarily chosen the forfeiture period to run from his first day as Chief of Staff, rather than the time his misconduct allegedly first occurred, i.e., in September 2000. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) initially recommended the Board supplement the record regarding its selection of the date upon which to commence the forfeiture period. In September 2007, the Board filed a supplementary statement of its reasons for selecting the initial date of Parkin’s employment as Chief of Staff as the operative date of forfeiture, relying heavily upon the statements made by the sentencing judge in which he outlined the nature and extent of Parkin’s criminal conduct. Subsequently, the ALJ issued his initial decision in November 2007 ordering forfeiture of all of Parkin’s service from the date he became Chief of Staff. The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommendations and this appeal followed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 12, 2009, Kate Benner published an article entitled “The Public Pension Bomb” in Fortune Magazine. The article addresses how states all across the country, for many years, have been starving their retirement plans. More importantly, however, the article focuses upon how the crisis is playing out in New Jersey, where the bill is coming due and the State does not have the money to pay it.

According to Benner, the New Jersey public pension situation is dire. In June 2008, the State estimated that the plan, one of the nation’s largest covering teachers, state employees, firefighters, and police officers, had $34 billion less than it needed to meet its obligations. Since then the market value of the plan has dropped from $82 billion to $56 billion. A new estimate of underfunding is due in July.

Benner also indicated that, overall, states nationwide have shortchanged the retirement programs that cover teachers, police, and other public employees. Now, the stock market plunge has wiped out billions of dollars from already underfunded plans. California, New York, and Illinois are among the states scrambling to plug multibillion dollar holes in their pension systems. As a result, these growing obligations raise the specter of higher taxes, diminished services, or even another round of costly federal bailouts.

Lastly, the article traces a 20 year time line to figure out how New Jersey dug itself into this hole. It also delineates the steps that have been and currently are being taken to address the problem. As such, any current or retired New Jersey public safety officer should read this article in order to fully understand the problems with the New Jersey public pension system. The status of the New Jersey public pension system is vital to every resident of this state and especially crucial to public safety employees. Consequently, one must be conscious of this in order to adequately prepare for its financial impact. To read the full article, click on the following link.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 7, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Steven Howe and Joseph Mufalli, Docket No. A-3512-07T1. In the case, Steven Howe appealed from the final administrative determination of the Merit System Board (“Board”), issued December 21, 2007, and its determination of March 13, 2008, denying his motion for reconsideration of the determination that Howe did not meet the experience requirements necessary to sit for the promotional examination for Chief Operating Engineer 2 of the Juvenile Justice Commission.

On appeal, Howe argued that “the administrative agency acted either arbitrarily or capriciously by finding appellant’s prior supervisory experience to be out of title,” whereas only one of the three applicants, Barry Schneider, who did the same work as appellant, was found to qualify for the exam. Howe further argued that the agency acted “arbitrarily and capriciously in its attempt to correct the ambiguous language in the job specification of operating engineer 1 and should have either negated the examination results or should have allowed all three applicants to sit for the exam.” 

After reviewing the entire record, the Appellate Division concluded that it could not disturb the findings of the Board because the Court must defer to the agency’s expertise in implementing civil service law. Although the Court noted the job description for operating engineer 1 is ambiguous regarding supervisory responsibilities and the Board directed that it be amended, the Court determined Howe did not provide evidence that he had supervised while in that position and, therefore, was not qualified to sit for the exam. As such, the Court found the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in not permitting him to take the examination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 4, 2009, the Appellate Division decided City of Clifton v. Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, Docket No.: A-4806-07T3. In the case, Defendant, Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, appealed from a trial judge’s decision vacating an arbitrator’s award of thirteen (13) shift differential (SD) days to police detectives. 

The trial judge ruled that, in a case in which the union’s grievance was filed eighteen (18) months after the alleged wrong first occurred, and not within the twenty (20) days provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator exceeded his powers when stated that he had waived the twenty (20) day contractual time limit. In reaching that conclusion, the judge discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Ed. Of Borough of Alpha v. Alpha Ed. Ass’n, a case in which the Court recognized and applied the continuing violation doctrine to preserve a late-filed grievance by the union resulting from the Board’s cessation of payment of health insurance benefits. Because the trial judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in considering the matter, the judge did not render an opinion on any substantive issue raised by the parties.

On appeal, the union claimed that the award was timely pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine as recognized by the Supreme Court. The City of Clifton argued, like the trial judge, that the arbitrator did not find a continuing violation to have occurred, but rather, determined to waive the contractual twenty (20) day requirement.

The Appellate Division determined the arbitrator’s decision is susceptible to both interpretations. According to the Court, the arbitrator’s decision suggests that he nominally declined to decide the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine, instead couching his decision in terms of waiver. However, the result reached was identical to the one reached in Alpha by application of the continuing violation doctrine. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of the basis for his decision on the timeliness of the action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) has proposed temporary rules to implement the provisions of L.2009, c.16. That law allows non-Civil Service law enforcement officers and firefighters who are terminated pursuant to a complaint or charges not involving any alleged violation of criminal law to have the option of having their terminations reviewed by means of binding arbitration.

Review through binding arbitration is an alternative to review through a proceeding in the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-22, pertaining to firefighters, and/or N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150, pertaining to law enforcement personnel. The new statute is applicable to terminations for non-criminal conduct in which the underlying conducts occurs after June 1, 2009. In addition, the new statute directs that PERC establish a special panel of arbitrators to review the terminations.

The text of the proposed temporary rules can be found on the Rulemaking page of the NJ PERC Web Site or by clicking on the following link.

Following receipt of comments from interested parties, PERC plans to adopt temporary rules. The temporary rules can remain in effect for thirteen (13) months. Before that period expires, PERC plans to propose and adopt permanent rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Comments on the temporary rules can be submitted by May 15, 2009 to: Lawrence Henderson, Chariman, Public Employment Relations Commission, P.O. 429, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0429 or via fax to (609) 777-0089 or email to lhenderson@perc.state.nj.us. 

It goes without saying that these rules will have a significant impact upon numerous New Jersey Public Safety Officers going forward. As such, please check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the adoption of these temporary rules.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link