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 20, 2010, a New Jersey judge ruled that a new law requiring public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health insurance can go into effect on May 21, 2010.

As reported in the Asbury Park Press, unions for police and firefighters asked the Superior Court for a temporary restraining order that would have kept the law from taking effect in certain situations. The request was part of a larger lawsuit that seeks to block the new law, which is part of the State’s efforts to hold down costs by being tougher on public employees and their unions, including those working for local government.

The new law, championed by Governor Chris Christie, requires the contributions of employees once their current collective bargaining agreements expire. Many public employees already contribute at least 1.5 percent of their salaries to health coverage. Other locals have chosen smaller pay raises to keep free health care, or have switched to inferior insurance coverage to keep it free. 

The unions’ main contention was that the amount employees pay for their health insurance should be worked out in contract negotiations, not imposed by the State. According to the judge, “not every term and condition on which a collective bargaining unit would want to negotiate is fair play.” The judge also rejected the unions’ arguments that the law amounts to an unfair tax on the State’s roughly 400,000 public employees or that the law is vague.

The unions will get another chance to make their case in court later. While the unions ultimately hope to stop the law from being enforced entirely, the main concern in this case was narrow. Police and firefighters are prohibited by state law from going on strike. When their contract negotiations reach an impasse, they go to a lengthy arbitration process. In essence, the unions argued the 1.5 percent payment requirement should not apply to the 215 local unions currently in the arbitration process.

Please continue to check this blog periodically for updates regarding this litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 18, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Linda Reid, Riverfront State Prison, Docket No.: A-3145-08T2. In the case, Linda Reid appealed from the final determination of the Civil Service Commission sustaining the charges of: (1) conduct unbecoming a public employee; and (2) filing a false report; and the sanction of removal from her position as a Senior Corrections Officer at Riverfront State Prison.

Reid began working as a corrections officer at Riverfront State Prison on July 26, 2002. As a result of an incident occurring on August 6, 2005, she was charged with assaulting an inmate and filing a false report in which she represented she had been the victim. The charges were sustained at a departmental hearing and on April 25, 2007, she was removed from employment. Following an appeal, the contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, wherein a hearing was conducted on April 30, 2008.

Testimony and evidence were presented by Captain Tommy Stahl regarding the internal affairs investigation, which concluded that Reid had assaulted an inmate and misrepresented that she was the victim; Officers Cherril Davis and Dyshella Kee who were eyewitnesses to the incident and reported that the inmate used profanity towards Reid but did not strike her, and that Reid beat the inmate and falsely claimed he assaulted her; and nurse Evelyn Mamuyac who observed only a slight swelling on Reid’s right cheek and lower lip. Reid testified on her own behalf stating that the inmate used profanities indicating he had to use the restroom after which an argument ensued and the inmate pushed her and hit her in the face, causing swelling to the right side of her face and lip and resulting in a scar under her right eye. She further testified to her exemplary performance assessment review from June 15, 2004 through June 15, 2005.

On November 14, 2008, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial decision, making express credibility assessments and finding Reid engaged in the charged conduct. Based on several inconsistencies in Reid’s testimony, the ALJ discredited her version of the events as self-serving. In determining the appropriate sanction, the ALJ considered Reid’s status as a Senior Corrections Officer, which “subjects her to a higher standard of conduct and responsibility than is required of other public employees.” Consequently, the ALJ found this conduct so egregious as to warrant removal despite the absence of a disciplinary history. On January 16, 2009, the Commission issued a final determination adopting the ALJ’s initial decision as to the charges and the sanction of removal. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Reid challenged the agency’s determination on the charges as not based on sufficient credible evidence in the record. She further contended the penalty of removal is not reflective of progressive discipline and, as such, the sanction should be reduced.

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

As reported by various media outlets, Governor Chris Christie announced a 33-bill legislative package on May 10, 2010 that plans to place stricter limits on property tax increases and a put a permanent 2.5 percent limit on annual raises for public workers.

Christie also discussed several potential reforms, including raising the retirement age to 65 from 62; having public employees pay more toward their pensions and allowing towns to discard some civil service rules.

Union leaders have criticized many of the proposals, doubting that they will save much money. They also fear that allowing towns to opt-out of civil service will open the system to more hiring decisions based on patronage.

The proposed legislation includes: (1) a constitutional 2.5 percent cap on the annual increases in municipal, school, and county property tax levies; (2) a 2.5 percent limit on the annual increases of public employee contracts, including wages, health benefits, vacation time, and other perks; (3) limiting the amount of unused sick time that current employees can cash out at $15,000; and (4) allowing towns to opt-out of the civil service system through an ordinance or a petition by 15 percent of the voters.

These new legislative proposals have the potential to impact every public employee in the State of New Jersey. Specifically, the proposal regarding the 2.5 percent limit on the annual increases of public employee contracts, which would affect all public employees, seems to usurp the purpose behind the collective bargaining process and the concept of organized labor. As such, this legislation must be followed closely by all New Jersey Public Safety Officers. Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding this legislation and its ultimate progression.

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