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

As reported in the Star Ledger on October 26, 2010, Governor Chris Christie joined with the Democratic Essex County Executive, Joe DiVincenzo, to stop a legislative effort to water down his proposal to cap public employee raises.

Democratic lawmakers were trying to pass a bill that would have allowed exceptions to Christie’s proposal for a so-called “hard cap” on salary increases in public worker contracts. The bill, introduced last week, was not only opposed by Christie, but DiVincenzo and some mayors as well. The Assembly had been scheduled to vote on the bill, but the bill was forced to be tabled after a determination that key support from Democratic members was lost. Therefore, an announcement was made that the bill was being shelved after a frenzied week of lobbying by DiVincenzo and others aligned with the Governor.

Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Stephen Sweeney summoned reporters to a news conference last Thursday to announce their proposal to reform the rules governing salary arbitration for public worker unions. In short, arbitration is a process that allows an “independent referee” to decide salaries when government entities cannot work out their differences with labor unions like those that represent police and firefighters.

The Oliver-Sweeney bill called for arbitrators to, among other things, take into account new statutory caps on property tax hikes and the economic climate of the region. However, it did not include a “hard cap” on pay raises which Christie and DiVincenzo are pushing.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak repeated the governor’s support for a tough salary cap and issued another call for the Legislature to pass the tax-control measures proposed by Christie as part of his “tool kit” agenda. “A hard cap would bring meaningful collective bargaining reform and is essential to finally control property taxes for every New Jersey homeowner,” Drewniak said. “Gov. Christie urges the Legislature to fulfill the commitment it made when it passed the 2 percent property tax cap and enact real arbitration reform and the other necessary tool kit bills without further delay.”

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

As reported in the Trentonian on October 19, 2010, New Jersey lawmakers failed to reach an agreement with the Governor’s office over how to ensure that police and firefighters’ raises are based on economic conditions in the towns where they work without trampling on their right to negotiate contracts.

Governor Chris Christie has been pushing for a 2 percent cap on annual salary and benefits increases for police and firefighters to help municipalities budget within a 2 percent cap that goes into effect January 1, 2010. Many mayors support the cap on arbitration awards, but police and firefighter unions are bitterly opposed. Unions indicate annual increases in health care costs would more than eat up the 2 percent increase.

Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Lou Greenwald emerged after about two hours in the office of the Governor’s counsel saying talks were continuing. “We’re going to talk throughout the night,” Greenwald said. “I think we had a productive conversation. I do not think we’re far away in our baseline numbers.”

Christie, a Republican, has made arbitration reform a centerpiece of his property tax stabilization efforts. He’s also identified changes in affordable housing rules, eliminating some state-imposed costs to towns and allowing towns to opt out of civil service rules for hiring workers as key components of his agenda.

Since police and firefighters are prohibited from striking, their contract disputes are settled by an arbitrator. Towns have been complaining that the process favors public workers. They say contract awards greater than 2 percent will force them to cut services elsewhere, unless changes are made.

Greenwald’s bill would require an arbitrator to resolve contractual impasses by selecting among “fair and final” offers submitted by each party in the dispute. It would also change the way arbitrators are selected. A competing bill, by Republican Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon of Monmouth County, mirrors the Governor’s proposal for a 2 percent cap on salary and benefits increases, and prohibits either side from proposing more.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on October 15, 2010, a battle is brewing at the Statehouse over whether to cap salary increases for public employees who cannot strike. Various mayors want arbitration-awarded salary and benefits increases for police and firefighters capped at 2 percent to help them control property taxes, but union officials say the ceiling would mean wage givebacks once health care costs are factored in.

The bill is part of Governor Christie’s reform agenda and includes making the arbitration process more favorable to municipalities. The Governor signed a law limiting property tax increases to 2 percent a year beginning in January. Many mayors called the bill the “centerpiece” of Governor’s Christie’s plan. Without it, they say they will have to cut services to lower costs because a large portion of the 2 percent increase get eaten up by salaries for police and firefighters.

Unions have responded by indicating the arbitration process works and that without it, police would be taking an annual pay cut. Anthony Wieters, president of the 30,000 member State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, told lawmakers that binding arbitration, whereby an independent arbitrator settles contract disputes involving police and firefighters who are not allowed to strike, has been demonized by misconceptions. For example, he said arbitrators are already required to consider a town’s ability to pay before deciding public employees’ wage increases. Wieters also indicated that mayors were eager to “scapegoat arbitration as the boogeyman of property taxes.”

Bill Lavin, president of the Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, also testified, calling the cap artificial and politics-driven. “Firefighters and police officers have continued to responsibly negotiate in good economies and bad. They’ve accepted wage freezes and have reorganized active contracts to give relief to municipal governments,” he said. ‘Many local fire unions have, in fact, agreed to multiple-year wage freezes.” 

Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain the status of this bill’s progression. Needless to say, such a bill would have a severe and detrimental impact upon New Jersey public safety officers throughout the State of New Jersey.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on October 13, 2010, the Ewing Township Police Department has slashed the number of tickets for motor vehicle violations in the past three months in response to the Township’s decision to lay off six patrol officers due to budget constraints.

According to Police Chief Robert Coulton, summons issued for moving and parking violations dropped from 633 written in June down to 340 in July, 293 in August and 290 in September. Coulton said younger officers, serving between one and five years, are traditionally the most productive in the ticket department, and the recent sharp drop in summonses, which means lost revenue for the township, is clearly a reaction to the township layoff notice issued months ago, targeting six junior patrol officers.

The police layoffs, however, have been put on ice following a request by PBA Local 111 to freeze final checks for unused vacation and sick time and start negotiations aimed at reinstating the six officers. No date has been set for the talks to begin, however.

Running down the number of tickets handed out this year, Coulton said Ewing police issued 684 in January, 500 in February, 734 in March, 644 in April, 504 in May, and then dropped off significantly. How much this has cost the Township in fines could not be determined. Coulton’s breakdown came at the request of Mayor Jack Ball, who issued the layoff order which took effect September 17 for the six officers and other township workers in various departments, laying the blame for these job cuts on Ewing’s loss of $2.5 million in state aid for Fiscal 2011, which began July 1.

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

On September 28, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Manuel Oliveira, Docket No.: A-3325-08T2. In the case, Manuel Oliveira appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) denying his application for back pay and counsel fees.

Oliveira is a Senior Corrections Officer with the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), who was removed from his employment on May 31, 2001. On October 20, 2005, the Merit System Board found that mitigating circumstances warranted a six-month suspension rather than removal. Following denial of a motion for reconsideration by the DOC, Oliveira returned to duty and pay status on April 24, 2006.

When the parties failed to agree on the amount of back pay and other benefit credits due to Oliveira, he requested the Merit System Board resolve these issues. In support of his application for back pay, Oliveira certified that he did not work for the entire time of his suspension. He further certified that he applied for three security positions with three different companies, but did not obtain a position. He further stated that he applied for a job in construction, which he did not obtain. He surmised that he was perceived as “damaged goods” and made not further efforts to obtain employment.

In its final decision, the Commission found that Oliveira was not entitled to back pay because he did not make reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages. The agency also found that Oliveira was not entitled to counsel fees because the record did not support a finding that his employer unreasonably delayed implementation of the reinstatement order. The Commission awarded Oliveira twenty (20) vacation days for 2005 and 2006, the maximum number of days permitted by statute. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Oliveira argued that the Commission acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in denying back pay and limiting his vacation time. He further contended that he was entitled to counsel fees. After considering Oliveira’s arguments and the contents of the record, the Court affirmed the Commission’s determination in its entirety. Specifically, the Court found the Commission’s determination was supported by sufficient, credible evidence in the record and the ruling was consistent with the law governing the award of back pay and benefits.

The case illustrates the principle that public employees who are terminated from their employment and, thereafter, ultimately reinstated to their position are not automatically entitled to back pay during their period of separation. Rather, the employee must make reasonable efforts to obtain alternate employment in order obtain an award of back pay. Without making such efforts, a court will likely find that the employee is not entitled to any back pay such as in this case. Therefore, in the event you are ever terminated from your employment, it is imperative to speak with an experienced attorney to ensure you rights are protected.

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