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 October 21, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Township of Irvington v. Irvington P.B.A. Local 29, Docket No.: A-0152-08T1. In the case, the Township of Irvington appealed from Law Division orders of April 13, 2007 and July 25, 2008 that respectively confirmed an arbitration award and supplemental arbitration award rendered in arbitration proceedings resulting from grievances filed by Irvington PBA Local 29 and Irvington Superior Officers Association (hereinafter “unions”).

In December 2003, Township officials notified all salaried Township employees that in the upcoming year, instead of their annual salaries being divided by twenty-six, they would be divided by twenty-seven and be paid in twenty-seven biweekly pay periods. Of course, each paycheck would be smaller than if the twenty-six pay period schedule was followed. After some objections and discussions, the Township changed its position. Employees would be paid in twenty-six pay periods, and their annual salaries would be divided by twenty-six, but some of the mid-year pay dates would be adjusted so the pay periods were longer than fourteen days.

On July 30, 2004, the unions filed a grievance claiming that the Township’s adjustment to the four pay dates violated the terms of their collective bargaining agreements. The unions requested that the Township refrain from adjusting the payroll dates, or else pay all union members the eighty “unpaid” hours at the overtime rate of time and one half. After going through all of the required procedural steps for a grievance, the matter was presented to Arbitrator Gerard Restaino.

In his initial award, Arbitrator Restaino required the Township to pay the employees represented by the unions for an additional two-week pay period in 2004. The trial court affirmed the award, but remanded the matter to Arbitrator Restaino for further consideration of the remedy, namely the manner in which the Township would be required to pay the award, in light of the Township’s claim that payment of the total amount required would cause it a severe adverse financial impact. In a supplemental award, the arbitrator modified the remedy to lessen the fiscal impact on the Township. This appeal ensued.

In its brief, the Township argued: (1) the initial award should not have been confirmed because the arbitrator exceeded his authority by disregarding the clear terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreements; and (2) the supplemental award should not have been confirmed because the arbitrator did not adequately consider the fiscal impact on the Township, and because the court incorrectly ruled as a matter of law that it lacked authority to determine the public policy impact of the award. The unions disputed the arguments raised by the Township, and further argued that the supplemental award was properly confirmed because the Township’s motion to vacate it was untimely.

At oral argument, the Township withdrew argument (1) described above, and advised the Court that it was limiting its argument to the fiscal impact issue. The Appellate Division, after considering the same, affirmed the determination of the trial court. After a thorough review of the record, the Court was satisfied that the trial court did not err in finding that the arbitrator sufficiently considered and addressed the fiscal impact issue in rendering his supplemental award. As a result, the Court found the award was properly confirmed.

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

On October 13, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Raymond Joseph Foster, III v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-5666-07T2. In the case, Raymond Joseph Foster, III, a member of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“PFRS”), appealed from the final decision of the Board of Trustees (“Board”), upholding the May 5, 2008 initial decision of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jeff Masin, finding that Foster “has failed to meet his burden to prove that the total and permanent disability from which he suffers is the direct result of the injuries received in the traumatic event [Foster suffered on March 5, 2002].”

Foster started working as a Bordentown Township police officer in February 1998. On March 5, 2002 at 9:51 p.m., Foster was injured in a motor vehicle accident, while working as a police officer. The police report indicated that it was a one-vehicle accident. Foster was responding to the ACME supermarket. As he entered the parking lot, he turned right, but missed the entrance and struck a light pole to the left of the entrance. At the time, Foster was thirty-seven years old.

More than four years later, in September 2006, Foster stopped working. According to Foster, he could no longer tolerate the pain, which had become more constant and excruciating. It was undisputed that Foster was totally and permanently disabled and unable to perform his work duties. Thereafter, Foster applied to the Board for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Board denied the application on the grounds that Foster’s disability was not a direct result of the automobile accident, thus he did not qualify for accidental disability benefits.

Foster challenged that decision. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. After hearings were conducted, ALJ Masin found that Foster’s application should be denied, concluding that Foster’s present disability was not the direct result of the accident. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Foster contended that the decision of ALJ Masin and the Board was not supported by the evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed. Based on its review of the record, the Court found that the Board’s findings were supported by the appropriate proofs and, therefore, its decision was supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. As such, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

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

On October 5, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of John Fasanella, Docket No.: A-4455-07T1. In the case, John Fasanella, a sheriff’s officer in Mercer County, appealed a decision of the Merit System Board (“Board”) upholding adverse administrative determinations regarding a promotional examination for lieutenant.

The promotional examination for lieutenant was announced with a closing date of December 21, 2004. Fasanella was one of the nine individuals who applied for and were admitted to that examination. The examination was conducted in written form on June 9, 2005, however, Fasanella, who was on active military duty from May 12, 2004 to June 25, 2006, was unavailable to take the examination on the date it was given.

The June 9, 2005 examination resulted in a four-name eligibles list, promulgated on September 29, 2005, with an expiration date of September 28, 2008. The first-ranked person on that list, a non-veteran, was appointed effective December 1, 2005.

On July 24, 2006, shortly after Fasanella’s return from active military duty, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs granted his application for veteran’s status. He made several requests of the Department of Personnel (“DOP”) to schedule his make-up examination for the lieutenant position. His examination occurred in June 2007. A memorandum from DOP, dated September 10, 2007, noted an “employment list change” with Fasanella ranked first on the list with veteran’s status. An October 15, 2007 memorandum from the Sheriff’s Office to Fasanella advised that the ranking had been modified as “for future certifications only.” Fasanella promptly filed his internal appeal from the latter determination.     

Subsequently, DOP notified Fasanella that his veteran’s status designation had been incorrect and that the eligibles list had been corrected to reflect his rank on the then-existing list as “A1 non-veteran.” Fasanella appealed that decision.

In considering the issues raised in the two appeals, the Board rejected Fasanella’s contention that he was entitled to the lieutenant appointment because he was, ultimately, first on the eligibles list and had veteran’s status. The Board determined that Fasanella did not qualify for veteran’s status at the time the list was certified. The Board also decided that the latitude conferred on the appointing authority by operation of the “rule of three” validated the appointment of the person who had been designated, notwithstanding that he was second on the list after Fasanella’s name had been added.  This appeal ensued.

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

According to an article published in the Trentonian on October 1, 2009, plans are in the works to put New Jersey’s most troublesome juvenile inmates in the custody of the adult prison system. This move, in turn, could potentially take the Juvenile Justice Commission (“JJC”) out of the incarceration business. In connection with this move, sources indicated that some JJC guards and teachers have been transferred back to adult prisons.

The article stated the JJC has stressed rehabilitation over punishment since it was formed in 1995 to take criminal children from the custody of the juvenile wing of New Jersey’s Department of Corrections. Recently, however, many guards in the JJC have complained about being attacked and injured by the increasing number of young gang members.

Under the plan being talked about in the Governor’s office, the JJC will continue to be part of state government, supervising group homes, halfway houses and other programs for keeping convicted juveniles out of prison. According to various sources, up to 80 percent of New Jersey’s juvenile offenders are doing well in the JJC system of not locking up most convicted teenage offenders. The sources also stated the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ Commissioner George Hayman has checked out the Johnstone State Mental Complex Facility in Bordentown to see if it can handle some of the overflow of inmates stemming from the JJC policy change as well as the closure of Riverfront State Prison in Camden.

Please check this blog periodically to ascertain any updates with regard to this new policy. To view the article published by the Trentonian in its entirety, please click on the following link.

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