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 on November 23, 2010, New Jersey’s Democratic leaders announced they are offering compromise legislation to Republican Governor Chris Christie that would allow pay hikes for police and firefighters achieved through arbitration to exceed two (2) percent for a year, as long as they remain within two (2) percent over the period of a contract. Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver unveiled the proposal at the Statehouse and said it also calls for the cap to be removed after three years, the average length of police and firefighter contracts, to allow the State to gauge its effectiveness.

Shortly after, Gov. Christie, who wants a flat annual 2 percent cap for police and firefighters salary increases, described the legislation as “watered down” and threatened to veto any Democratic version of legislation designed to hold down property taxes if he decided it is not “real reform.” Christie has introduced a 33-bill “tool kit” to lower property taxes and the Democrats who control the Legislature are offering their own versions. Any compromises are expected to be worked out before legislators adjourn for the year-end holidays.

The Sweeney-Oliver legislation would require pay for longevity, length of service, salary increments and other similar compensation to be included in the 2 percent cap. It would also require all contracts that expire in the three-year window to adhere to the cap, to prevent the purposeful stalling of contract negotiations. The proposal would also change the process for selecting an arbitrator for interest arbitration and change the process by which judgments are appealed.

Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain any updates regarding any and all legislation pertaining to police and firefighters.

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

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 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

On June 25, 2009, the Appellate Division decided IAFF, Local 1197 v. Township of Edison, Docket No.: A-0194-08T1. In the case, IAFF, Local 1197 appeals from an order entered by the trial court on August 4, 2008, denying its motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action to enforce an arbitration award against defendant Township of Edison (“Township”) and for interest on the arbitration award.

Plaintiff is the exclusive representative for firefighters and certain other emergency workers employed by the Township. A collective bargaining agreement between the parties had been in effect from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004. The parties engaged in negotiations, but were unable to reach an agreement on a new contract. 

Consequently, on May 12, 2005, plaintiff initiated compulsory interest arbitration by filing a petition with the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”). The proceedings ultimately resulted in a decision by the arbitrator on April 7, 2008, which granted the affected employees retroactive and future salary increases.

On April 25, 2008, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the Township and inquired as to when the arbitration award would be implemented. The Township responded that the award would be implemented when the new agreement was executed. Plaintiff asserted that arbitrator’s award should be implemented immediately. On May 8, 2008, the Township sent plaintiff a draft of the new contract. Plaintiff responded on May 22, 2008 and informed the Township that the salary rates in the draft agreement had not been calculated correctly. Thereafter, Plaintiff provided the Township with its own salary schedule.

By letter dated May 29, 2008, the Township advised Plaintiff that it was reviewing the salary rates submitted by Plaintiff to determine if they were correct. The Township also informed Plaintiff that retroactive payments would be made as soon as it concluded its review of the salary rates. 

On May 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed a petition in the trial court to enforce the arbitration award. On June 9, 2008, the Township advised Plaintiff that it had completed its review of the salary rates submitted by Plaintiff and had determined that the rates were correct. The Township informed Plaintiff, however, that retroactive payments could not be processed until it received information concerning contributions by the employees to the Township’s deferred compensation plan. On July 1, 2008, the Township provided Plaintiff with its calculations of the retroactive payments due to the affected employees.

The trial court heard oral argument on July 3, 2008. The Township did not oppose Plaintiff’s application to enforce the arbitration award, but argued that the court should not award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees, costs, or interest on the award because it had been actively implementing the award.

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