WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL (L-7649-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedNovember 26, 2018
DocketA-3228-17T4
StatusUnpublished

This text of WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL (L-7649-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL (L-7649-17, ESSEX 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
WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL (L-7649-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), (N.J. Ct. App. 2018).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3228-17T4

WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81 (WEST CALDWELL UNIT),

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________

Argued October 16, 2018 – Decided November 26, 2018

Before Judges Yannotti, Rothstadt and Natali.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-7649-17.

Angelo J. Genova argued the cause for appellant (Genova Burns LLC, attorneys; Angelo J. Genova and Joseph M. Hannon, of counsel and on the briefs; Ryann M. Aaron, on the briefs).

Leonard C. Schiro argued the cause for respondent (Mets, Schiro & McGovern, LLP, attorneys for respondent; Leonard C. Schiro, of counsel and on the brief; Julian N. Krol and Ryan E. Ross, on the brief). PER CURIAM

The Township of West Caldwell appeals from an order entered by the Law

Division on February 21, 2018, which vacated an arbitration award and found

that Sergeant Daniel Gorman was entitled to an additional $14,185.61 in

terminal leave payments for vacation and sick leave. We affirm.

I.

The Township and West Essex PBA Local 81, West Caldwell Unit (PBA),

are parties to a collective negotiations agreement (CNA), which is effective from

January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019. Article V of the CNA governs

vacation and holiday time. It states, in pertinent part, that an employee covered

by the agreement "shall receive vacations" based on the length of the employee's

service. An employee who has served between fifteen to nineteen years receives

200 hours of vacation time. The CNA does not, however, address how an

employee accumulates vacation leave if the employee retires or is separated

before the end of a calendar year.

Article XIII of the CNA governs sick leave. It provides that an employee

covered by the agreement shall receive a specified number of hours of sick leave,

based upon the date the employee was hired. Section A of Article XIII states

that "[a]ny unused sick leave days will be accumulated and compensated to the

A-3228-17T4 2 [e]mployee at the rate of fifty percent (50%) as terminal leave at the time of

retirement or by virtue of work-connected disability-causing separation."

Section C of Article XIII permits an officer to use as personal days up to two

eight-hour shifts or two twelve-hour shifts from his or her total annual sick leave

allotment. Section C also states that "[a]t the time of separation or retirement,

the accumulated terminal leave to which an [o]fficer is entitled pursuant to

Section A herein shall be reduced by one-half . . . day for each personal day

used."

It is undisputed that from at least 2006 until January 2015, the Township

did not prorate the vacation time earned if an employee retired or was separated

before the end of the calendar year. It is also undisputed that before January

2015, the Township calculated the employee's terminal sick leave payment by

first determining the total accumulated sick leave hours, and deducting one-half

of the hours of the personal sick leave the employee used during his or her

employment. The Township then reduced that number by fifty percent and

applied the employee's final hourly rate of pay to arrive at the terminal sick leave

payout.

On January 15, 2015, the Township adopted and issued a "Personnel

Policies and Procedures Manual/Employee Handbook" (Handbook), which

A-3228-17T4 3 provides in pertinent part that "[v]acation time is credited at the beginning of

the calendar year, in anticipation of continued employment for the remainder of

the year (it shall be accrued proportionally throughout the year)." The

Handbook states that "[d]uring the final year of employment, an employee may

take his/her full (or prorated share) vacation entitlement or may elect to receive

payment in lieu of time off."

In January 2015, Township Administrator Adam W. Brewer held a

meeting with all municipal staff, including members of the police department,

and explained certain provisions of the Handbook. Brewer addressed the change

in the manner in which vacation time accrues in the last year of employment.

Brewer testified that at the meeting, Gorman asked him whether the Handbook

applied to all of the Township's employees. Brewer responded by saying the

Handbook applied to all employees, but the CNA would apply to all employees

covered by the agreement in the event of a conflict.

In 2015, the Township also changed the method for calculating the

terminal sick leave payments. According to Nikole Monroig, the Township's

Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Administrator, certain Township officials

reviewed the CNA and concluded that the method the Township had been using

A-3228-17T4 4 to calculate the terminal sick leave payments was based on an erroneous

interpretation of the contract.

The Township decided to calculate the terminal leave payments for sick

time by taking the total number of hours of unused sick time the employee had

accrued, and reducing that number by half. From that number, the Township

would deduct one-half of the hours of personal sick leave the employee had used

during his or her employment. The Township then would multiply that number

by the employee's hourly rate of pay to arrive at the amount of the employee's

terminal sick leave payout.

The Township applied its new calculation method for terminal vacation

leave payouts to John Kopf and William Coughlin, two members of the PBA's

bargaining unit who submitted retirement papers after January 15, 2015. In

2015, the Township also applied the new calculation method for the terminal

sick leave payouts to Kopf, Coughlin, and William Styskal, another member of

the PBA bargaining unit. The PBA did not object to the terminal leave payments

for these employees.

Gorman retired from the Township's police department, effective July 1,

2016. The Township calculated Gorman's vacation leave for 2016 in accordance

with the new methodology. The Township prorated his 200 hours of vacation

A-3228-17T4 5 time for 2016, and determined that Gorman was entitled to 100 hours for that

year, and 37 hours of vacation leave which he carried over into 2016.

The Township also calculated Gorman's sick leave payout in accordance

with its new policy. It determined that as of June 30, 2016, Gorman had

accumulated a total of 329.50 hours of unused sick time. The Township divided

that number in half, arriving at 164.75 hours. Gorman had used 444 hours of

personal sick time during his employment. The Township subtracted half of that

number, 222 hours, from 164.75 hours, leaving a negative balance of 57.25

hours.

The PBA disputed the Township's calculations. It calculated Gorman's

vacation and sick time payments in accordance with the policies that had been

in effect until January 2015. The PBA asserted that Gorman was entitled to the

full allotment of 200 hours for 2016, along with the 37 hours he carried over

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

Related

New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. v. Amalgamated Transit Union
902 A.2d 209 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2006)
Kearny PBA Local 21 v. Town of Kearny
405 A.2d 393 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1979)
Plainfield Bd. of Ed. v. Ed. Ass'n
727 A.2d 71 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Local 196, I.F.P.T.E.
920 A.2d 88 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2007)
City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass'n
713 A.2d 472 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
Tp. of Wyckoff v. Pba Local 261
976 A.2d 1136 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2009)
State, Office of Employee Rel. v. Communications Workers
711 A.2d 300 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
BOARD OF EDUC., BOROUGH OF ALPHA, WARREN CTY. v. Alpha Educ. Ass'n
911 A.2d 903 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2006)
Manger v. Manger
9 A.3d 1081 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2010)
Borough of East Rutherford v. East Rutherford PBA Local 275
61 A.3d 941 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WEST ESSEX PBA LOCAL 81, ETC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF WEST CALDWELL (L-7649-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-essex-pba-local-81-etc-vs-township-of-west-caldwell-l-7649-17-njsuperctappdiv-2018.