Opinion
BER-L-5647-21
10-17-2022
Ridgefield Park PBA Local 86, Plaintiff, v. Village of Ridgefield Park, Defendant.
Merick H. Limsky, Esq., appearing on behalf of Plaintiff Ridgefield Park PBA Local 86 (from Limksy Mitolo) Philip N. Boggia, Esq., appearing on behalf of Defendant Village of Ridgefield Park (from Boggia Boggia Betesh & Voytus)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS
Civil Action
Argued: September 29, 2022
Merick H. Limsky, Esq., appearing on behalf of Plaintiff Ridgefield Park PBA Local 86 (from Limksy Mitolo)
Philip N. Boggia, Esq., appearing on behalf of Defendant Village of Ridgefield Park (from Boggia Boggia Betesh & Voytus)
OPINION
Honorable Robert C. Wilson, J.S.C.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Ridgefield Park PBA Local 86 (hereinafter "Plaintiff" or the "PBA") is a public employee organization and is the duly recognized majority representative of all patrolmen and Sergeants of the Village of Ridgefield Police Department. Defendant Village of Ridgefield Park (hereinafter "Defendant" or the "Village") is a public entity whom members of the PBA work for.
Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to a series of collectively negotiated labor agreements (hereinafter the "CNLAs"), the most recent of which covers the period of January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2024 (hereinafter the "Agreement"). The Agreement contains Article X, which outlines a multi-step grievance procedure for the purpose of resolving disputes arising between the parties. Article X further states that, in the event of a dispute, the parties must undergo binding arbitration in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Public Employment Relations Commission (hereinafter "PERC") as the terminal procedure.
The CNLAs, including the current Agreement, provide for Medical, Dental, Vision, and Life Insurance Benefits for Plaintiff's members. They also provide for insurance benefits for certain retirees in accordance with the Village's health coverage that is provided to employees and their dependents. On June 28, 2011, P.L. 2011, Chapter 78 (hereinafter "Chapter 78") took effect. Chapter 78 requires contributions towards the cost of health insurance premiums for local government employees and retirees. After Chapter 78 became effective, Plaintiff and Defendant signed a CNLA whereby both parties agreed that all employees of Defendant who retire on or after June 15, 2012, shall receive the same benefits in retirement as are provided to active police officers. This language was included in each of the two subsequent CNLAs executed by the parties, including the Agreement at the center of this dispute.
On or about June 15, 2020, Alfonso Locarno, who had worked for Defendant as a Sergeant for twenty-six years, informed Defendant he would be retiring on August 1, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Defendant sent a memo to Sgt. Locarno, indicating that he would remain entitled to the same health benefits as PBA members, and would be required to contribute to the cost of his health benefits at the Tier 4 level. The Tier 4 level is the level at which St. Locarno had been paying while an active employee of Defendant; the level at which all other active employees of Defendant pay; and the level which has been agreed upon in the parties' CNLAs. Sgt. Locarno and Plaintiff objected to this assertion by the Defendant, asserting that the language of the Agreement provided that police officers who had previously retired from Defendant's police department received fully paid medical benefits.
Plaintiff filed a grievance based upon Defendant's request that Sgt. Locarno make the aforementioned contributions. Defendant rejected the grievance, determining that Chapter 78 and the CNLAs require contributions towards the cost of health insurance premiums for local government employees and retirees.
The grievance ultimately resulted in the matter being arbitrated before Arbitrator Gary T. Kendellen (hereinafter the "Arbitrator"), pursuant to the rules promulgated by PERC. The parties disagreed as to the framing of the issue; ultimately, the Arbitrator framed the issue as:
Did the Defendant violate the Agreement by requiring retiring employee Sergeant Alfonso Locarno to pay a portion of the cost of his health benefit premiums at the active employee level? If so, what shall be the remedy?
On June 11, 2021, the Arbitrator issued the following award:
The [Arbitrator] finds that the record evidence is compelling that the [Plaintiff's] arguments do not overcome the evidence that the [Defendant] has offered that supports the [Defendant's] interpretation and application of Article XVIII's provisions to the circumstances of Sgt. Locarno's retirement. Based upon Sgt. Locarno's work history, he was subject to the [Defendant's] application of the statutory framework imposed upon the parties and specifically anticipated in the parties' 2019-2024 Agreement in Article XVIII at Paragraphs C and H. Therefore, the [Defendant] did not violate said Agreement.
Plaintiff contends, in essence, that retirees of Defendant need not make any contributions whatsoever to the cost of their health benefits. Defendant's contention is simply that retirees such as Sgt. Locarno must continue to make the same contribution levels in retirement as they did while they were employed by Defendant.
Plaintiff has now filed a Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause, to vacate the Arbitrator's June 11, 2021, award. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
RULE OF LAW AND DECISION
The Arbitrator's Award was Correct and Must be Upheld
New Jersey law strongly favors the enforcement of arbitration awards. If an award is even "reasonably debatable," it must be affirmed. N.J. Transit Bus Operations, Inc. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 187 N.J. 546, 553 (2006). A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator, even if it might have resolved the dispute differently. Id. at 554. The rare circumstances under which a court may overturn an arbitration award are:
a. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means;
b. Where there was either evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or any thereof;
c. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause being shown therefor, or in refusing to hear evidence, pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehaviors prejudicial to the rights of any party;
d. Where the arbitrators exceeded or so imperfectly executed their powers that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.
The only other circumstance under which a court may vacate an arbitration award is "if it is contrary to law or public policy." Borough of E. Rutherford v. E. Rutherford PBA Local 275, 213 N.J. 190, 202 (2013) (quoting Middletown Tp. PBA Local 124 v. Township of Middletown, 193 N.J. 1, 11 (2007)). However, the Supreme Court has counseled that overturning arbitration awards should only be done in "rare circumstances" and not merely due to a differing opinion concerning public policy. Id. Even if the court may have resolved a factual or legal question differently, it may not substitute its own opinion for that of the arbitrator. Middletown Tp. PBA Local 124, 193 N.J. at 11.
The Supreme Court has advised that the deference given to arbitration awards is even stronger in the public sector:
Arbitration simply is not a mere gateway to the courthouse. The resolution of arbitrated disputes should ordinarily end with the conclusion of the arbitration. Such an approach gives credence to the notion that arbitration provides a straightforward and effective way to resolve legal matters. That is particularly so in the case of public-sector labor disputes. Parties that agree to arbitrate contractual disputes must recognize that courts give arbitrators significant discretion to make reasoned conclusions based on interpretations of the contractual language and the relevant law. The mere fact that this Court or any other court may disagree with an arbitrator's decision is not sufficient to overturn an arbitration award.Borough of East Rutherford v. East Rutherford PBA Local 275, 213 N.J. 190, 209 (2013) (emphasis added).
Further, "[a]n arbitrator's award is 'entitled to the presumption of validity and the party opposing confirmation has the burden of establishing that the award should be vacated pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.'" Twp. Of Wyckoff v. Local 261, 409 N.J.Super. 344, 354 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting Jersey City Educ. Association v. d. of Educ., 218 N.J.Super. 177, 187 (App. Div. 1987)). Id. Plaintiff, as the party seeking to overturn the Arbitrator's award, bears the burden of demonstrating that the award was invalid under the reasons set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8 or otherwise contrary to applicable law or public policy.
Plaintiff's contention that the Arbitrator's decision ignores the clear and ambiguous language of the Agreement is incorrect. The record reveals that the Arbitrator analyzed the numerous relevant provisions in Article XVIII of the Agreement and considered both parties' arguments. The Arbitrator articulated his decision in a 14-page decision, which concluded that Defendant's actions were justified by the language contained in the Agreement. While it is true that Sgt. Locarno was the first retiree not to receive fully paid retirement benefits, this is not the result of actionable conduct by Defendant. Sgt. Locarno was simply the first retiree to be subject to Chapter 78.
While Plaintiff and Sgt. Locarno are unsatisfied with the Arbitrator's decision, this is not sufficient grounds to vacate an arbitration decision. The Arbitrator's decision conforms with Defendants' interpretation of the Agreement and its application of Chapter 78. Paragraph H of the Agreement dictates that employees retiring on or after June 15, 2012, will receive the same benefit as then-current employees. The Arbitrator correctly noted that the Chapter 78 cost-sharing provisions have been long incorporated into Defendant's pay practices in a manner which requires Defendant's employees to contribute to the cost of health insurance premiums. Accordingly, Sgt. Locarno is contractually obligated to contribute to the cost of his health insurance premiums. Thus, the Arbitrator's decision was correct.
Chapter 78 was Correctly Applied by the Arbitrator
New Jersey Courts have repeatedly held that "[i]n the public sector, unlike the private sector, public policy demands that the arbitrator follow the law and consider the public's interest and welfare." Jersey City. Educ. Association, 218 N.J.Super. at 188. Chapter 78 was a critically important piece of legislation that was intended to, and did, compel all employees and retirees to make substantial contributions towards their health care coverage. To help ensure that these contributions were not eroded, the law specifically stated that Tier 4 "contribution levels...become part of the parties' collective negotiations" agreement after reaching full implementation. N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.2.
The Arbitrator's decision is consistent with the grandfather provisions of Chapter 78. The Court agrees with the Arbitrator and Defendant that, at all times relevant hereto, Chapter 78 remained in full effect at the Tier 4 level for all employees and retirees of Defendant's Police Department. Plaintiff's reading of Chapter 78 would require the Court to determine that the CNLAs have passively reverted to a zero percent contribution for retirees, without such a provision ever being contemplated by the parties during negotiations for the past two CNLAs. The Court finds no evidence upon which to make such a finding.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award is DENIED.