HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (L-2539-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedNovember 7, 2019
DocketA-0016-18T1
StatusUnpublished

This text of HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (L-2539-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (L-2539-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (L-2539-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), (N.J. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0016-18T1

HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and JAMES WALTERS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON,

Defendant-Respondent.

Argued September 24, 2019 – Decided November 7, 2019

Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-2539-17.

Paul Lewis Kleinbaum argued the cause for appellants (Zazzali Fagella Nowak Kleinbaum & Friedman, attorneys; Paul Lewis Kleinbaum, of counsel and on the briefs; Marissa A. Mc Aleer, on the brief).

Catherine P. Wells argued the cause for the respondent (Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, attorneys; Michael P. Balint and Bruce R. Darvas, on the brief). Craig Scott Gumpel argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association.

PER CURIAM

In 1992, plaintiff James Walters began his employment with the police

department of defendant Township of Hamilton (Township). After rising

through the ranks, he was promoted to Sergeant in 2014 and became a member

of the Hamilton Township Superior Officers Association (SOA). As a result, he

was subject to the collective negotiation agreement (CNA) governing members

of the SOA. When Walters retired in 2017, the Township informed him that,

under N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1 (the statute or Chapter 78), he was required to

contribute to his health benefits. He was not eligible for employer-paid health

insurance as he had expected.

Walters believed he was exempt from the statute and instituted suit. The

trial judge granted summary judgment to the Township, finding Walters did not

meet the statute's exceptions and he was required to make the mandatory

contributions in retirement towards his health insurance. After reviewing the

contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of law, we affirm.

When enacted in 2011, Chapter 78, codified at N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1,

"change[d] the manner in which the State-administered retirement systems[]

A-0016-18T1 2 operate[d] and . . . the benefit provisions of those systems." Div. of Pensions &

Benefits, Pension and Health Benefits Reform, N.J. Dep't of Treasury,

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/reform-2011.shtml (last updated

Sept. 27, 2019). Prior to the passage of Chapter 78, the issue of contributions

for health care coverage for active and retired employees was a negotiable

subject for unionized employees. Chapter 78 removed the issue from the

negotiation table and implemented mandatory contributions levels, up to thirty-

five percent of the cost of premium coverage. The statute required all active

public employees, and most employees who retired after its adoption, to

contribute to their health care coverage. The only employees exempted from

Chapter 78's mandatory contributions were those who had accrued twenty or

more years of service in a State or locally-administered retirement system on the

effective date of the statute, June 28, 2011. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(b)(3).

The health insurance contributions mandated by Chapter 78 commenced

on June 28, 2011, or upon the expiration of any CNA in effect on that date. The

mandatory contributions were subject to a four-year phase-in period beginning

either on the statute's effective date or upon the expiration of any CNA in effect

on that date. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(a), (d).

A-0016-18T1 3 The four-year phase-in period required: 1) one-fourth of full contribution

in the first year; 2) one-half of full contribution in the second year; 3) three-

fourths of full contribution in the third year; and 4) full contribution in the fourth

year. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(a). "[F]ull implementation" occurred upon

completion of the four-year phase-in period. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(d). While

Chapter 78 included a sunset provision,1 meaning a law with a designated

expiration date, employees under a CNA remained subject to the four-year

phase-in period until full implementation. See ibid.; see also Ridgefield Park

Bd. of Educ. v. Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass'n, 459 N.J. Super. 57, 63 (App. Div.

2019). After full implementation, the mandatory contribution levels returned to

the bargaining table and were subject to future negotiations. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-

21.2.

Against that backdrop, we turn to the facts regarding Walters'

employment, including the several CNAs in effect during Chapter 78's tenure.

When the statute went into effect on June 28, 2011, Walters was a member of

the Hamilton Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 66, subject to a CNA

1 "This act shall take effect immediately, and sections 39 through 44, inclusive, shall expire four years after the effective date." P.L. 2011, c. 78, § 83. Despite the statute's expiration, certain provisions, including the implementation period, remained applicable. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.2. A-0016-18T1 4 (PBA CNA). That CNA expired on June 30, 2013. When Walters was promoted

to Sergeant, he was subject to a SOA CNA (SOA CNA #1), in effect until

December 31, 2016. Upon SOA CNA #1's expiration, Walters' employment was

governed by SOA CNA #2, effective until December 31, 2018.

The "Insurance" clause of SOA CNA #1 and #2 states at Article XIII 1(a):

"The Employer shall continue to provide medical insurance, including

prescription, dental and vision. Pursuant to [Chapter 78], though, employees are

now required to contribute a portion of their salaries toward the costs of health

insurance at a rate set forth in Chapter 78." Article XIII 1(h) provides: "The

Township shall provide full medical and drug plans for retired employees and

their families in accordance as set forth in this Agreement."

When Walters retired on July 1, 2017, he had twenty-five years and one

month of service in the Police and Firemen's Retirement System.

As there were no facts in dispute, the parties moved for summary

judgment. After consideration of the arguments, the trial judge found Walters

had not served twenty years in a retirement system at the time of Chapter 78's

effective date and he was therefore not exempt from the statute's terms. He also

determined that the four-year phase-in period under Chapter 78 was still in place

when Walters retired on July 1, 2017. Because Walters was subject to PBA

A-0016-18T1 5 CNA on the statute's effective date, the four-year phase-in period did not begin

for him until the expiration of that CNA on June 30, 2013. However, when the

phase-in period expired, Walters was still subject to SOA CNA #2, which

required employees and retirees to make the Chapter 78 mandatory health

insurance contributions. SOA CNA #2 remained in effect through December

2018.

In addressing plaintiffs' argument that Article XIII 1(h) obligated the

Township to provide full health care benefits, the judge noted the section further

stated it would provide benefits in accordance with "the Agreement," in

reference to Article XIII 1(a).

Following the grant of summary judgment to defendant, plaintiffs moved

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON (L-2539-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-township-superior-officers-association-vs-township-of-hamilton-njsuperctappdiv-2019.