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 16, 2009, the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) issued a decision in response to certain unfair practice charges and requests for interim relief filed against the State of New Jersey regarding the imposition of unpaid, “furlough” days. 

By way of background, on April 14, 2009, the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (“CWA”), filed an unfair practice charge and a request for interim relief against the State of New Jersey. CWA alleged that the State committed unfair practices proscribed by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act by: (1) unilaterally imposing a reduction in the work year and compensation of employees represented by CWA by requiring them to take unpaid leave days; (2) failing to negotiate over the effects of the decision to impose involuntary unpaid leave days; and (3) conspiring with the Civil Service Commission to enact temporary layoff rules for the purpose of circumventing the State’s obligation to negotiate over staggered unpaid leave days. The charges alleged that, through these actions, the State repudiated various sections of the collective negotiations agreements it has entered into with CWA and breached its duty to negotiate over terms and conditions of employment in violation of the Employer-Employee Relations Act. Additional charges and requests for interim relief were filed between April 14 and April 29 by other employee organizations representing units of various State employees, including P.B.A. 105.

An order to show cause was executed and the return date was ultimately scheduled on May 14. Once numerous briefs, certifications, and exhibits were filed, all parties appeared on the return date.  After entertaining argument, the Commission Designee Stuart Reichman, in an extensive written opinion, denied the applications for interim relief. The Designee found that where a monetary remedy could normally be issued by the Commission in the event the furloughs were found to constitute an unfair practice, as is the case here, an injunction to prevent the institution of the furloughs is not appropriate because monetary loss does not constitute irreparable harm. As a result, the unfair practice charges will proceed in the normal course. To read the decision in its entirety, download the same from the PERC website.

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

Yesterday, April 16, 2009, the Appellate Division conducted oral argument on the Emergency Temporary Layoff Rule. Specifically, the Appellate Division heard argument on the four appeals from the Civil Service Commission’s emergency rule authorizing temporary layoffs, also known as mandatory furloughs. The argument was conducted in the Morris County Courthouse in Morristown, New Jersey, with dozens of union members packing the courtroom. 

Lawyers arguing for the public employee unions said the State did not prove it was in “imminent peril,” a requirement to pass the emergency rule that authorizes the furloughs. Moreover, it was asserted that the furloughs are a clear breach of contract in violating numerous collective bargaining agreements.

The Assistant Attorney General, who represented the State, said the Civil Service Commission followed all the rules when it authorized furloughs. He further contended that public employees were risking layoffs by protesting furloughs.

The Appellate Division did not make a ruling on the case, but said to expect one soon. Therefore, please continue to check this blog periodically for updates as further information becomes available.  

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

Four New Jersey unions are asking a court to stop mandatory furloughs of public workers. Yesterday, March 30, 2009, the New Jersey Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the Communication Workers of America, which collectively represent 93,000 police officers, firefighters and rank-and-file state and municipal workers, filed separate actions in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The Probation Association of New Jersey and the Firemen’s Benevolent Association also filed similar suits. The actions seek to block a new Civil Service Commission rule giving the Governor and local governing bodies emergency power to impose temporary layoffs because of the economic crisis.

As stated in a previous blog entry, Governor Corzine and the State of New Jersey intend on instituting a mandatory furlough program, which requires various State of New Jersey employees to absorb unpaid days of absence from their position of employment. Initially, the mandatory furlough program requires certain State employees to absorb two (2) unpaid days of absence from the workplace, specifically one day each in May and June 2009. Thereafter, the State seeks to extend the mandatory furlough program into Fiscal Year 2010, whereby certain State employees are to absorb twelve (12) unpaid days of absence from the workplace, one day each month for the entire fiscal year.

To accomplish this goal, on March 25, 2009, the Civil Service Commission adopted, on less than 24 hours notice, a new, emergency rule, N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.1, to permit “temporary layoffs,” or furloughs, for both State and local employees. The Commission did so without any notice to the parties who would be immediately affected by this action and without an opportunity to discuss the proposed rule. It is this rule which is being challenged by the various unions.

It goes without saying these lawsuits are of vital importance to any law enforcement officer, firefighter, and State of New Jersey employee. The outcomes of these actions might very well have a drastic impact not only on any and all State employees, but the public at large. As a result, please consult this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the status of these lawsuits.      

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