Most recently, in performing an assignment for one of the labor unions that we represent, we came across the following Grievance Arbitration Decision from the State of Florida. The case analyzes some very important “portal to portal” and “shift overlap” issues in the field of Corrections and should be reviewed by Union Locals to determine if

On May 14, 2009, the Appellate Division decided Harry G. Parkin v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement System, Docket No.: A-2466-07T1. In the case, Harry Parkin appealed from the final agency decision of the Board of Trustees of the Public Employee Retirement System (“Board”) resulting in the partial forfeiture of his service and salary credits. Specifically, Parkin contended that the Board failed to follow its own regulations governing partial forfeiture of pension benefits and further contended that the Board “adopted a rule regarding the partial termination of pension benefits without going through the regulatory process.” 

With the exception of a four-year break in service, from 1972 to January 1, 2004, Parkin was continuously employed in various public positions until he retired as Mercer County Chief of Staff. Based upon his veteran’s status, his service time, and additional credit he received as part of an early retirement incentive program, he had accumulated twenty-eight (28) years and nine (9) months of service credit equating to a monthly pension of $5,864.49.

On March 11, 2004, Parkin was indicted by a Federal grand jury and charged with having participated in a wide-ranging, corrupt scheme utilizing his office as Chief of Staff to defraud Mercer County and its citizens. The indictment alleged numerous acts Parkin committed in furtherance of the plan while employed as Chief of Staff. After a jury trial, in March 2005, he was convicted of all charges. In August 2005, he was sentenced to a period of ninety (90) months imprisonment.

The Board considered Parkin’s entitlement to pension benefits at its September 2005 meeting. Applying the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c), the Board determined a partial forfeiture was warranted for the period of time Parkin served as Chief of Staff, i.e., from June 1, 1994, to the date of his retirement. As a result, Parkin became ineligible for veteran retirement status and additionally lost early retirement incentives. His monthly pension was significantly reduced and he no longer qualified for lifetime medical benefits.        

Thereafter, Parkin appealed to the Office of Administrative Law, wherein he argued that the Board had arbitrarily chosen the forfeiture period to run from his first day as Chief of Staff, rather than the time his misconduct allegedly first occurred, i.e., in September 2000. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) initially recommended the Board supplement the record regarding its selection of the date upon which to commence the forfeiture period. In September 2007, the Board filed a supplementary statement of its reasons for selecting the initial date of Parkin’s employment as Chief of Staff as the operative date of forfeiture, relying heavily upon the statements made by the sentencing judge in which he outlined the nature and extent of Parkin’s criminal conduct. Subsequently, the ALJ issued his initial decision in November 2007 ordering forfeiture of all of Parkin’s service from the date he became Chief of Staff. The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommendations and this appeal followed.

Continue Reading Public Employees and Forfeiture of Pension Benefits

As posted on the website for the New Jersey Law Enforcement Supervisors Association, at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2009, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission will hold a public hearing on the new rules authorizing the unilateral imposition of involuntary, unpaid furloughs, or temporary layoffs affecting public employees.  The meeting will be

On Friday, April 17, 2009, The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the ability of state and local governments to furlough public employees. The court agreed with the decision of the state government that the fiscal crisis that the state and nation currently faces allows for emergency action.

In citing its opinion the

Gannet News Services ran an article in today’s Asbury Park Press that discussed how the New Jersey Department of Corrections saved 2.6 million dollars in overtime spending by slightly "tinkering" with the Department’s overtime policies.  As all corrections officers and supervisory personnel are aware, the minor tinkering that is discussed in the article is what

Point Pleasant Beach Police Chief, Daniel DePolo, has charged that the budgetary cuts initiated by the Borough Government are so deep that they are placing the public safety at risk and will prevent the police department from fulfilling its mission.  Recent budget cuts have chopped the Department’s overtime budget by 75% and have made cuts