Skip to content
New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog logo

New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog

Dedicated to Corrections Officers, Policemen, & Firemen throughout the Garden State

Menu

HomeAboutServicesContact
Published by Frank M. Crivelli

Court Permits Suit Alleging Violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement to Continue

By Donald Barbati on June 2, 2009
Posted in Contract Interpretation

 

On May 28, 2009, the Honorable Peter A. Buchsbaum, J.S.C. decided Mark Petersen v. Township of Raritan, Docket No. HNT-L-446-08. The complaint alleged contractual violations of the 1997-1999 collective bargaining agreement between the Township of Raritan and the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was police officer who retired in 1999. The 1997-99 collective bargaining agreement included retiree health benefits at Article XXII. As of July 1, 2008, current employees and retirees would no longer be able to enroll in the Traditional Plan. Those who were already enrolled in that plan, such as Plaintiff, could switch to the POS plan without any cost to them. They could, however, choose to remain in the Traditional Plan, provided they agreed to pay the excess premium between these two plans from that point in time.

Count one of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff is paying a premium differential for the Traditional Plan in which he is enrolled, that is, the difference in premium costs between the Traditional Plan and the POS plan offered by the Township. Count two of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff’s co-pays for certain prescription drugs have increased. In response to the complaint, Defendant moved for summary judgment.

The trial court found the language of the collective bargaining agreement sufficiently complex to warrant further examination. Specifically, the court found ambiguity in the insurance clause as to whether the language “shall continue to receive all health and medical benefits provided by the employer for the remainder of his life” would reasonably lead Plaintiff to believe that he would receive health coverage equivalent to the Traditional Plan for the remainder of his life. Therefore, the court determined Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature and, thus, factual exploration of the issues in this matter is necessary.

Tags: Agreements, Bargaining, Collective, nj cbas, nj collective bargaining units, NJ Municipal Police, NJ Police, NJ Public Safety Officers, nj retired police officers, NJSP, premium sharing nj, retired officers and healthcare, Retired Police Officers, retired workers nj, units
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
Labor Arbitration Awards: Be Mindful of The Standard of Review
May 1, 2018
Morris County Freeholders Reject Sheriff's Officers' Bargaining Agreement That Was Negotiated and Signed by The Sherriff
March 20, 2015
NJ League of Municipalities Warns that Christie's Proposed Pension Reform Could Disenfranchise Workers and Trigger a Mass Exodus of Local Employees
March 2, 2015
Published by

About this Blog

Frank M. Crivelli is a partner in the law firm of Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C. His primary practice revolves around the representation of public employee labor unions in various capacities to include contract negotiation, unfair labor practice litigation, contract grievance arbitration, and other diverse issues that are litigated before state and federal trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative tribunals throughout the State of New Jersey

Stay Connected

Subscribe to this blog via RSS LinkedIn Twitter

Topics

Archives

Recent Upates

  • Governor Murphy Sign Laws In An Effort To Try And Boost Racial Diversity Among New Jersey Police Departments
  • Wayne Township Vaccine Mandate Upheld By Court Following a Challenge Lodged by PBA Local
  • NJ Supreme Court Upholds the Total Forfeiture of Municipal Inspector’s Pension for Bribery Conviction
  • N.J. State Police should speed up internal investigations, watchdog report says
  • Supreme Court Reaffirms “Reasonably Debatable” Standard In Reviewing Arbitration Awards

Links

  • Crivelli & Barbati, L.L.C. Homepage
  • Instagram
Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C.
2653 Nottingham Way
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: 609-981-7800
Website: http://www.CBNJLaw.com
Subscribe to this blog via RSS LinkedIn Twitter
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer

ABOUT CRIVELLI, BARBATI & DeROSE, L.L.C.

When facing a significant legal battle, it is difficult to know who you should turn to for help. Legal cases can be overwhelming. You need to have someone who is knowledgeable in the laws of New Jersey fighting on your side. The attorneys you choose can greatly impact the success of your case. Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C., located in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, has over 30 years of combined legal experience and has successfully represented thousands of individuals, labor unions, and small businesses.

Read More...
Copyright © 2023, Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C.. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo