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 January 31, 2009, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that approximately 50 Louisville Metro Police officers decided to turn in their patrol cars so they will not have to pay an increased fee for using them after work hours. Police Chief Robert White announced in December, 2008 that officers who take their vehicles home would have to pay a $100 monthly fee to help cut expenses in the department and help address a $20 million projected city budget shortfall. Officers who use their cars for off-duty employment will have to pay $160 per month.

Previous to the announcement, officers were paying a $30 monthly fee or $60 for off-duty employment use. The fees have been an issue of contention between the police administration and the Fraternal Order of Police, the union that represents officers. The union contends that assessing the fee violates their contract because it was not negotiated as a change. However, police department managers say driving cars home is a privilege and is not part of the officers' contract.

The policy that assessed the original fee is the subject of a grievance that is presently outstanding. When the fee was increased, the grievance was amended to include the new proposed charges.

The police department estimates that approximately 1,094 police department vehicles are used as take-home cars. With the policy in place and the increased fees, the police department estimates that a savings for the city in the amount of $110,000.00 will be realized on a monthly basis.

While this particular article does not have direct applicability to New Jersey Public Labor Law, it does demonstrate that state, county, and municipal police departments throughout the country are looking to curtail spending and reduce costs due to the economic recession. If cuts have not been made in many departments throughout New Jersey, union leaders can expect to see the implementation of cost savings measures soon. It is vitally important to the rights of organized public safety officers that each one of these “cuts” or cost savings measures be assessed and evaluated to determine if the actions are contractual violations and should therefore be the subject of a group grievance. Keep your eyes and ears open and be sure that the rights of your members are being protected.  Finally, always be sure to fight within the confines of the law to preserve the integrity of your collective bargaining agreement.

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

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic Vicinage, (DeLuccia, J.S.C.) recently interpreted a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) pertaining to discipline in the case of Whitaker v. Passaic County Sheriff's Department, 33-3-139.  In this case the Plaintiff appealed her right to challenge minor disciplinary charges which were previously dismissed for alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the CBA. 

Instead of proceeding with the grievance procedure as outlined under the CBA, Whittaker opted to challenge the minor discipline at a disciplinary hearing.  After the disciplinary hearing was decided, Whittaker next attempted to appeal the decision through the grievance procedure as outlined in the CBA.  Whittaker was denied the right to grieve the charges by her employer stating that she was precluded from doing so due to the fact that she had chosen to challenge the charges at a hearing and is thus not entitled to pursue the case by way of grievance. 

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, took the liberty to interpret the CBA and held that a reasonable interpretation of the agreement would permit an employee charged with a minor disciplinary infraction to proceed first to an administrative hearing to challenge the charges and then, if adverse action is taken by the employer, to demand arbitration of the dispute under the CBA. 

This is an interesting case in that it appears to give a Public Safety Officer "two bites at the apple" when challenging minor disciplinary charges.  Furthermore, we normally do not see Superior Court Judges stepping into disputes between public employers and employees especially when it comes to the interpretation of a CBA.  Interpretation of agreements is traditionally left to the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) and the Appellate Division.  I think what we should take away from this case is that there is always more than one reasonable interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, and Public Safety Officers should not be afraid or hesitate in certain circumstances to challenge their employers in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

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

In a non-published opinion, the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the Public Employment Relations Commission’s (PERC) decision to restrain binding arbitration of a grievance filed by PBA Local 105 for the payment of compensatory time off for work performed by essential employees during the 2006 governmental shutdown was lawful. In 2006, under a declaration of emergency, Governor Jon Corzine shut down the operation of the State of New Jersey due to the government’s failure to agree upon an operating budget. In the case of State of New Jersey Department of Corrections v. PBA Local 105, 32-2-0507, a ruling from PERC upholding a Scope of Negotiations petition filed by the State of New Jersey concerning the union’s inability to grieve essential employee compensation under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d) was reviewed. Under New Jersey labor law, employees may only grieve alleged negotiated contractual violations that have not been previously legislated by the State of New Jersey. 

In this instance, the Appellate Court found that under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d), the New Jersey Department of Personnel left no doubt that any compensation originating from a declaration of emergency is determined by statute under subsection 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Therefore the payment of compensatory time off during a state of emergency was preempted from negotiations and not grievable. The bottom line is if you are deemed an essential employee and you are called in to work during an emergency while all non-essential personnel are home enjoying the day off, you will get compensated at your regular rate of pay, and no more.

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