Paterson Police Pba Local 1 v. City of Paterson, Etc.
433 N.J. Super. 416
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Paterson Police PBA Local 1 and SOA challenged health-insurance 1.5% contributions under L. 2010, c. 2 as applied to base salary.
- Arbitration award required 1.5% contributions; defendant withheld 1.5% of pensionable salary, including longevity, incentives, and night/detective differentials.
- CNAs prior to 2008 set salary, longevity, and other payments; health costs were not part of employee contributions originally.
- DLGS issued LFN 2010-12 defining base salary as the salary on which pension contributions are based; DPB informal guidelines aligned with this.
- Trial court held base salary excludes longevity, incentives, and certain differentials; directed refunds and adjustments.
- Appellate court reversed and remanded to apply the statutory definition of base salary from N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is base salary under the statute and award? | PBA argues base salary excludes non-salary allowances. | City argues base salary includes pensionable components. | Base salary defined by statute; include longevity and related items, exclude pension/health costs. |
| Should the award be interpreted consistent with statutory base salary? | Award uses broader base salary; misapplies definition. | Award should be interpreted per statutory guidance and DLGS/DPB interpretations. | Arbitration must follow N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7(a) definition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (2009) (legislative intent and statutory interpretation framework)
- McGovern v. Rutgers, 211 N.J. 94 (2012) (interpretation of statutory language and extrinsic evidence)
- Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. State of N.J., Dep't of Treasury, 421 N.J. Super. 75 (Law Div. 2011) (agency interpretation and governmental cost-control context)
- Hillsdale PBA Local 207 v. Borough of Hillsdale, 137 N.J. 71 (1994) (arbitration framework under Reform Act)
- In re City of Camden, 429 N.J. Super. 309 (App. Div.) (public employment arbitration standards and review)
- Klumb v. Bd. of Educ. of Manalapan-Englishtown Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 199 N.J. 14 (2009) (extrinsic evidence and legislative intent in statutory interpretation)
- Velazquez v. Jiminez, 172 N.J. 240 (2002) (context for legislative intent and statutory construction)
- Kas Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Ellman, 407 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div.) (interpretation of statutory terms in administrative context)