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

Recently, the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) has proposed temporary rules to implement the provisions of L.2009, c.16. That law allows non-Civil Service law enforcement officers and firefighters who are terminated pursuant to a complaint or charges not involving any alleged violation of criminal law to have the option of having their terminations reviewed by means of binding arbitration.

Review through binding arbitration is an alternative to review through a proceeding in the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-22, pertaining to firefighters, and/or N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150, pertaining to law enforcement personnel. The new statute is applicable to terminations for non-criminal conduct in which the underlying conducts occurs after June 1, 2009. In addition, the new statute directs that PERC establish a special panel of arbitrators to review the terminations.

The text of the proposed temporary rules can be found on the Rulemaking page of the NJ PERC Web Site or by clicking on the following link.

Following receipt of comments from interested parties, PERC plans to adopt temporary rules. The temporary rules can remain in effect for thirteen (13) months. Before that period expires, PERC plans to propose and adopt permanent rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Comments on the temporary rules can be submitted by May 15, 2009 to: Lawrence Henderson, Chariman, Public Employment Relations Commission, P.O. 429, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0429 or via fax to (609) 777-0089 or email to lhenderson@perc.state.nj.us. 

It goes without saying that these rules will have a significant impact upon numerous New Jersey Public Safety Officers going forward. As such, please check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the adoption of these temporary rules.

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

On March 31, 2008, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided the case Detective Sergeant Dean Ackermann v. Borough of Glen Rock and Glen Rock Police Department, Docket Number A-2947-07T2. In the case, the parties appealed and cross-appealed from an order entered by the trial court.

Plaintiff has been a member of the Glen Rock Police Department for more than twenty years. He holds the rank of sergeant and the title of detective. Defendants are the Borough of Glen Rock and its police department. On October 3, 2006, Steven D. Cherry, Chief of the Department, served Plaintiff with a disciplinary notice, charging him with acting contrary to good order and discipline and violating Glen Rock’s “No Tolerance Policy” with respect to wrongdoing in the workplace. The notice contained no recommendation with respect to discipline.

Three days later, Chief Cherry served an amended notice of disciplinary action which set forth nine charges. In the amended notice, Chief Cherry recommended that Plaintiff be suspended for three days without pay and be required to attend an approved course in sensitivity training. The charges were based upon complaints by Anna Maria Mattina, the Borough’s first female police officer. She alleged certain conduct by Plaintiff toward her was unwanted and harassing.

Plaintiff denied any wrongdoing, would not accept the proposed discipline, and requested a hearing. The hearing officer sustained the charges, but rejected the recommendation as to discipline. He recommended Plaintiff be suspended without pay for ten days as well as attend an approved course in sensitivity training. The report was submitted to the mayor and council, which accepted his findings but rejected the recommendation for discipline. The council passed a resolution suspending Plaintiff without pay for sixty days, demoting him to police officer and requiring completion of a course in sensitivity training before returning to active duty. 

In response, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint in lieu of prerogative writ, contending that the evidence presented did not support the findings that were made, the procedure utilized did not conform to the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs policies and procedures that the Borough adopted, and that the increase in penalty was retaliatory.

The trial court, hearing the matter as a trial de novo, concluded that only two of the violations had been proven and that the penalty imposed by the Borough was excessive. The Court directed Plaintiff be suspended for two concurrent periods of thirty days without pay and complete a course in sensitivity training. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, the Appellate Division held that, when hearing a police disciplinary matter de novo, a trial court has the authority to impose a sanction other than that imposed by the municipality. In this case, the Court found no error in directing that Plaintiff not be demoted and instead imposing a suspension and directing attendance at sensitivity training. Moreover, the Court found that although Defendants violated the Attorney General’s guidelines for conducting a disciplinary hearing, the trial court correctly found that the errors did not prejudice the Plaintiff.

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