NJ Pays Out Nearly $5M in Clothing Allowance to Employees with Office Jobs

Posted on April 13, 2011 by Donald Barbati

 

As reported by nj.com, last year, the State of New Jersey paid some state workers a clothing allowance who did not need to wear a uniform to work, a report by the state comptroller found. “The state spends millions of dollars every year to cover the cost of uniforms for state employees who don’t actually wear uniforms,” State Comptroller Matthew Boxer said in a news release. “It’s absurd.”

The report zeroed in on a payment that state workers receive as part of contracts negotiated with the unions that represent them. According to the report, the clothing stipends have been included in contracts for more than a decade. The report detailed the breakdown of the $22 million paid to 27,000 employees for clothing stipends in the previous fiscal year. Of that total, $8 million went to corrections officers, $6 million to employees in the health field, and $2.6 million to security, maintenance, and similar job holders.

The report found that the remaining $4.8 million went to employees with office or desk jobs. Of those employees, who each received $700 a year, a survey was conducted and determined 48 percent do not wear special clothes to work. The survey found that 82 percent were not required to wear special clothes to work.

The size of the stipend, larger than any other state, was also targeted in the report. Boxer is recommending reviewing the stipends and only providing them to those employees who need special uniforms for work. “Figuring out who exactly is entitled to these payments should not be so complicated,” Boxer said in a news release.

Tags: , , ,

Sheriff's Officer Responsible for Reimbursement of Training Costs

Posted on March 5, 2009 by Frank Crivelli

In the case of Spicuzzo, Sheriff of Middlesex County et al. v. Barcheski, App Div., 33-2-2859, the Appellate Division approved a final judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff, the Sheriff of Middlesex County, where in the Defendant in the case was ordered to reimburse the department $8,469.48 pursuant to a written contract outside of the collective bargaining agreement.  In the outside contract, the Defendant in the case, Barcheski, entered into a written agreement with the sheriff's department that if he left employment prior to the completion of forty eight (48) months active service, he would be required to reimburse the Sheriffs department for the full cost of his training and uniforms.  The trial court ruled that the contract between the parties was a lawful binding agreement despite the fact that there was no mention of the requirement for reimbursement in the collective bargaining agreement.  The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.

The lesson to take away from this case is simple.  Be very weary of "side agreements" or written contracts external to the collective bargaining agreement that are entered into between the department and individual officers.  While such contracts may not be binding upon a union, the courts have upheld such agreements as being valid when entered into between individual officers and the department despite the contract differing from the collective bargaining agreement. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,