One of the mechanisms that law enforcement officers and unions have at the negotiations table is the characterization of or “free agent” mentality. In simple terms, this refers to an individual officer’s ability to transfer or seek employment with another agency that is offering better wages, benefits, and employment conditions. When this occurs, however, employers are routinely attempting to recoup the training costs they expended on the officer upon initially hiring them, to include certifications, equipment, uniforms, and academy training. Suffice it to say, the employers believe they should be reimbursed the same since the benefit of such training will now be provided to another agency/department.

Employers typically seek to recoup such training costs through a specific provision contained in the parties’ collective negotiations agreement/contract. To this end, the Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) has held that the reimbursement or recoupment of training costs is a mandatorily negotiable topic. As a result, such provisions are enforceable against the officers leaving employment. In some cases, this has required officers to pay their employer several thousand dollars in training costs merely for pursuing a better employment opportunity.

Therefore, if such a provision is contained in your collective negotiations agreement/contract, you may want to propose revisions to the same in order to lessen the impact on officers who leave, such as: (1) shortening the amount of time the officer needs to be employed with the agency before having to reimburse them if they choose to leave; or (2) capping the amount of the reimbursement. Conversely, if no such provision is contained in your agreement/contract, you may want to adamantly oppose any such proposal by the employer. Quite simply, a provision mandating that officers reimburse their employers for training costs serves as a deterrent of sorts for officers seeking better opportunities, thereby reducing the union’s leverage at the table for better wages and other terms and conditions of employment. As we all know, possessing leverage at the table is of paramount importance and should be preserved in all facts to the extent possible.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Donald C. Barbati Donald C. Barbati

Donald C. Barbati is a shareholder of Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C. His primary practice revolves around the representation of numerous public employee labor unions in various capacities to include contract negotiation, unfair labor practice litigation, contract grievance arbitration, and other diverse issues…

Donald C. Barbati is a shareholder of Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, L.L.C. His primary practice revolves around the representation of numerous public employee labor unions in various capacities to include contract negotiation, unfair labor practice litigation, contract grievance arbitration, and other diverse issues litigated before the courts and administrative tribunals throughout the State of New Jersey. In addition, Mr. Barbati also routinely represents individuals in various types of public pension appeals, real estate transactions, and general litigation matters. He is a frequent contributor to the New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog, a free legal publication designed to keep New Jersey public safety officers up-to-date and informed about legal issues pertinent to their profession. During his years of practice, Mr. Barbati has established a reputation for achieving favorable results for his clients in a cost-efficient manner.

Mr. Barbati has also handled numerous novel legal issues while representing New Jersey Public Safety Officers. Most notably, he served as lead counsel for the Appellants in the published case In re Rodriguez, 423 N.J. Super. 440 (App. Div. 2011). In that case, Mr. Barbati successfully argued on behalf of the Appellants, thereby overturning the Attorney General’s denial of counsel to two prison guards in a civil rights suit arising from an inmate assault. In the process, the Court clarified the standard to be utilized by the Attorney General in assessing whether a public employee is entitled to legal representation and mandated that reliance must be placed on up-to-date information.

Prior to becoming a practicing attorney, Mr. Barbati served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Linda R. Feinberg, Assignment Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer Vicinage. During his clerkship Mr. Barbati handled numerous complex and novel substantive and procedural issues arising from complaints in lieu of prerogative writs, orders to show cause, and motion practice. These include appeals from decisions by planning and zoning boards and local government bodies, bidding challenges under the Local Public Contract Law, Open Public Records Act requests, the taking of private property under the eminent domain statute, and election law disputes. In addition, Mr. Barbati, as a certified mediator, mediated many small claims disputes in the Special Civil Part.

Mr. Barbati received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history, magna cum laude, from Rider University in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Upon graduating, Mr. Barbati attended Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. In 2007, he received his juris doctorate, magna cum laude, graduating in the top five percent of his class. During law school, Mr. Barbati interned for the Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey in Camden, New Jersey, assisting on various constitutional, employment, and Third Circuit Court of Appeals litigation, including numerous civil rights, social security, and immigration cases.