MICHAEL DEPIETRO VS. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY (L-3089-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3064-15T1

Freddie Mitchell, a Roseland police officer since ~2000, refused to sign a performance notice concerning his 2011 sick-leave use after being told the signature acknowledged receipt only.
RPD held a disciplinary hearing (April 9, 2012); hearing officer found Mitchell guilty of insubordination and recommended an eight-day suspension and reprimand, which the Chief imposed.
Mitchell sought de novo review in Law Division; trial court remanded for rehearing because no transcript existed.
At rehearing (June 13, 2014), witnesses (Ribaudo and Captain Kitchin) testified the January 26, 2012 meeting was to obtain Mitchell’s signature acknowledging receipt; Mitchell testified he sought clarification and would contact union counsel.
Trial court (Dec. 17, 2015) set aside the suspension, finding RPD violated Mitchell’s Weingarten right to union representation at an investigatory meeting and that the RPD failed to prove insubordination; trial court denied reconsideration.
Appellate Division reversed, holding the January 26 meeting was not investigatory for Weingarten purposes and that Mitchell’s refusal to obey a lawful order to sign constituted insubordination; reinstated eight-day suspension.

Issue	Mitchell's Argument	RPD's Argument	Held
Whether RPD violated Mitchell’s Weingarten right to union representation at the Jan. 26 meeting	The meeting was investigatory and Mitchell reasonably believed discipline could follow, so he was entitled to representation	The meeting was only to obtain an acknowledgement-of-receipt; not investigatory, so Weingarten doesn’t apply	Reversed trial court: meeting was not investigatory; no Weingarten violation
Whether Mitchell’s refusal to sign the receipt form was insubordination	He sought clarification before signing and reasonably declined to sign absent explanation; refusal was not disobedience	He disobeyed a clear lawful order from a superior to sign an acknowledgement	Reversed trial court: refusal to sign a lawful order was insubordination; suspension reinstated
Standard of review for trial court’s factual and legal conclusions on de novo review	(implicit) Trial court may overturn hearing officer if facts/support warrant	Appellate review defers to trial court’s factual findings if supported but reviews legal conclusions de novo	Appellate panel held trial court erred legally in its Weingarten analysis and in overturning insubordination finding

NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975) (employee may request union representation at investigatory interview that could lead to discipline)
In re Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 144 N.J. 511 (1996) (PERC’s adoption of Weingarten rule applied to New Jersey public employees is a permissible construction of state law)
Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 214 N.J. 338 (2013) (statutory framework and just-cause requirement for non–civil-service municipal police discipline)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings of Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990) (trial court’s duty to make independent findings on de novo review of disciplinary record)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (legal determinations are reviewed de novo)
Township of West Windsor v. Nierenberg, 150 N.J. 111 (1997) (trial judge findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial credible evidence)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv’rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for upholding trial court findings of fact)