CITY OF PATERSON v. PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL NO. 1, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1109-05T11109-05T1

CITY OF PATERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL NO. 1 AND

THE PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL NO.1

SUPERIOR OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________________

 

Submitted May 3, 2006 - Decided June 2, 2006

Before Judges Grall and Newman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Passaic County, PAS-C60-05.

Dorf & Dorf, attorneys for appellant (Gerald L. Dorf and Christopher J. Vaz, on the brief).

Mark C. Rushfield, attorney for respondents.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff City of Paterson (the City) appeals from an order of the Chancery Division confirming an arbitration award entitling the grievant James Bishop, a retired Paterson police officer, to Medical-Hospital Benefit plan coverage. The coverage is pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and defendants Paterson Police PBA Local No. 1 and Paterson Police PBA No. 1 Superior Officers Association (collectively, the Union). We affirm.

The facts are not in dispute. Officer Bishop was a police officer with the City for seventeen years, beginning on April 1, 1986 and retiring on April 1, 2003. Prior to his employment with the City, Officer Bishop served on active duty in the United States Navy for three years and eight months and then was employed by Passaic County for five years and 11 months. In the aggregate, he served more than twenty-five years, but not all of those twenty-five years was with the City.

In denying him medical-hospital benefits, the City maintained that all twenty-five years of service must be with the City, so he was not entitled to coverage because he did not meet that eligibility requirement.

The operative provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement was section 31.2, which provided:

Employees who retire on a paid pension shall be covered by the city's medical-hospital benefit plan currently in effect for active employees, and the City shall pay the full cost of such coverage including, dependents at the time of retirement, until the retiree dies.

The arbitrator considered language employed in section 31.2 to be unambiguous and clear. Bishop retired on a paid pension and was deemed eligible for the medical health benefit plan coverage.

By way of contrast, section 31.3.2.1 of the same Collective Bargaining Agreement, dealt with the subject of prescription benefits, which required twenty-five years of continuous service with the City. That provision read as follows:

Effective November 1, 1993 the City shall pay the full cost of the Drug Prescription Plan for the individual employee, spouse and dependent children under the age twenty-three (23) years for employees who retire on a paid pension under the following conditions. This provision shall only apply to employees who retire after twenty-five (25) years of continuous service with the City. . . .

The obvious conclusion drawn from the contrasting provisions was that the City and Union could negotiate to restrict benefits and did so in connection with prescription benefits but not medical-hospital benefits.

Judge McVeigh confirmed the arbitrator's award in a written decision dated August 29, 2005. The judge found that the arbitrator had not exceeded his power, had applied the clear and unambiguous language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and had considered the public interest in deciding the issue of benefits for a retirant.

The City further argued that the award could not be sustained because it ran contrary to the statutory requirement of uniformity contained in N.J.S.A. 40A:10-23. Before its amendment on June 26, 1995, that statute provided in relative part:

The employer may, in its discretion, assume the entire cost of such coverage and pay all of the premiums for employees who have retired on a disability pension or after 25 years' or more service with the employer, or have retired and reached the age of 62 years or older with at least fifteen (15) years of service with the employer . . . .

The 1995 amendment to N.J.S.A. 40A:10-23 deleted the language "twenty-five years or more of service with the employer" and replaced it with "twenty-five years or more of service credit in a state or locally administered retirement system and a period of service of up to twenty-five years with the employer at the time of retirement, such period of service to be determined by the employer and set forth in an ordinance or resolution as appropriate." N.J.S.A. 40A:10-23. By way of amendment, the City was afforded the discretion to set a different floor below the twenty-five years of service by way of ordinance or resolution. In this instance, the City has not adopted such an ordinance or resolution. The City has, however, ratified the Collective Bargaining Agreement that was adopted subsequent to this amendment containing the language previously noted in section 31.2, which enables a retiree on a paid pension with twenty-five years of service to be eligible for medical health plan coverage.

Given this history, Judge McVeigh concluded that the Collective Bargaining Agreement was neither void nor altered by the fact that it was consistent with the 1995 amendment "by including a reference that the retiree employee must retire within an approved and valid pension plan."

Judge McVeigh also pointed out that while uniformity may be the ideal, the results may be different where different bargaining units of dissimilarly situated employees are involved. Here, the Union's Collective Bargaining Agreement affecting the police was different from other employee units within the City which did not make the conditions any the less uniform.

On appeal, the City argues that the arbitration award was procured by undue means; that it was premised on a crucial mistake of law as it violated the uniform condition standard of N.J.S.A. 40A:10-23; that the arbitrator failed to give due weight to the City's rights under subsection 3.1 and 3.5 of the agreement; that the arbitrator exceeded his authority; the arbitrator imperfectly executed his authority as prescribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-15 (d); and the award violates public policy. We have carefully reviewed the record in this matter, we reject the City's contentions, and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge McVeigh in her written opinion of August 29, 2005.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-1109-05T1

June 2, 2006