Senate Committee Debates Salary Cap for NJ Police and Fire

Posted on October 15, 2010 by Donald Barbati

 

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.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Arbitrator's Decision Remanded for Clarification on Timeliness Issue

Posted on May 5, 2009 by Donald Barbati

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.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,