American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council No. 52 v. Hudson County Welfare Bd.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1976
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,COUNCIL
• Citation: 141 N.J.Super. 25,357 A.2d 67
• Parties: , 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3084 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,NO. 52 and its Local 2306, Plaintiffs, v. The HUDSON COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, a public corporation of the State of New Jersey, and the County of Hudson, a public corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 25

141 N.J.Super. 25

357 A.2d 67, 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3084

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL

EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL NO. 52 and its Local

2306, Plaintiffs,

v.

The HUDSON COUNTY WELFARE BOARD, a public corporation of the

State of New Jersey, and the County of Hudson, a

public corporation of the State of New

Jersey, Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division.

April 1, 1976.

Michael J. Herbert, Trenton, for plaintiffs (Sterns & Greenberg, Trenton, attorneys).

George R. Allen, Hoboken, for defendant Hudson County Welfare Bd.

Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr., Hudson County Counsel, Jersey City, for defendant County of Hudson.

KENTZ, J.S.C.

This controversy presents for decision an issue not heretofore addressed in any reported opinion of this State. The case deals with the powers of the newly elected County Executive form of government in Hudson County chosen by the voters of the county in November 1975 pursuant to the Optional County Charter Law (act), L.1972, c. 154; N.J.S.A. 40:41A--1 Et seq. Specifically, the issue to be decided is whether the County of Hudson (county) has the power under the act to abolish the present structure of the Hudson County Welfare Board (board). The particular issue is before the court on cross-motions for partial summary judgment. R. 4:46--2. The case in general has more aspects to be explored, but due to the urgency of time and the important public interest involved, it was agreed by the court and counsel that the interests of all concerned would best be served by an expedited hearing and decision on this limited issue. Cf. Retz v. Saddle Brook Mayor & Council, 69 N.J. 563, 355 A.2d 189 (1976). The time problem arises out of the fact that the county intends to adopt its new Administrative Code (code) on April 2, to become effective May 1, 1976, as required by N.J.S.A. 40:41A--125. Section 8.3 of the proposed Code will transform the board into the Division of Welfare, which is a unit within the proposed Department of Health and Social Services.

Plaintiffs American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL--CIO, Council No. 52, and its Local 2306 (union) are the collective bargaining representatives for the employees of defendant board. There is presently in existence a valid collective bargaining agreement between the union and the board which is set to expire on December 31, 1976. Pursuant to Article X of this collective bargaining agreement, the board notified approximately 21 members of the union that they were to be promoted to certain positions. At about the same time the county, through the county counsel's office, notified the board that 'no raises of any kind should be granted to any employees or any agreement to give raises entered into.' Following the instructions of the county, the board refused to promote the employees who had been previously notified that such promotions were forthcoming. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement the union filed a grievance. Apparently, the board agreed with the union as to the provision of the collective bargaining agreement and the propriety of the promotions sought, but asserted that it was precluded from granting the promotions by reason of the county's instructions as set forth in the letter from the county counsel. The plaintiff then instituted the present action seeking an injunction restraining the county from interfering with the personnel practices of the board, an order directing the board to specifically adhere to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, and a declaratory judgment that the county does not have the power to assimilate the Board. ¹

Plaintiff contends that the board is legislatively mandated to operate as an autonomous body. N.J.S.A. 44:7--7. It asserts that the various provisions of Title 44 of the New Jersey Statutes are general law which require the continuation of the board as a separate entity, independent of the political control of the county, subject to statewide personnel standards prescribed by the New Jersey Department of Institutions & Agencies (I & A) and not by parochial requirements of the county. Plaintiff further states that the actions of the county are at variance with the uniform personnel standards prescribed by I & A, and this will directly result in the loss of federal welfare funds to the State.

The County, ² on the other hand, firmly argues that the clear, unambiguous intent and meaning of the act is to enable the county to consolidate the existing board with other county functions in an effort to provide a more efficient, economical and preferred method of service. It is the county's position that that which the union declares to be unlawful is the exact purpose of the reforming legislation set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:41A--1 Et seq., particularly 40:41A--25, 26, 27 and 30. The county agrees that no matter what form the administration of welfare services assumes, it must conform to the requirements, rules and regulations promulgated by the I & A, including the personnel standards. N.J.S.A. 40:41A--26, 30. The county appears to have made provision for this in § 8.3 of the Code which provides:

Under the direction and supervision of the Director, the division (of welfare) Shall have exercise and discharge all of the functions, powers and duties of a County Welfare Board, as prescribed by law. (Emphasis supplied)

N.J.S.A. 40:41A--30 outlines the general powers granted to the new forms of county government under the act. It reads in part:

The grant of powers under this act is intended to be as broad as is consistent with the Constitution of New Jersey and with general law relating to local government. The grant of powers shall be construed as liberally as possible in regard to the county's right to reorganize its own form of government, to reorganize its structure and to alter or abolish its agencies, subject to the general mandate of performing services, whether they be performed by the agency previously established or by a new agency or another department of county government. (Emphasis supplied)

'General law' is defined in N.J.S.A. 40:41A--26:

For the purposes of this act, a 'general law' shall be deemed to be such law or part thereof, or heretofore or hereafter enacted, that:

a. Is not inconsistent with this act;

b. Is by its terms applicable to or available to all counties, or;

c. Additional laws or provisions of law whether applicable to all counties or to any category or class of counties, deals with one or more of the following subjects: the administration of the judicial system, education, elections, health, county public authorities, taxation, and finance, and welfare.

N.J.S.A. 40:41A--26 further provides:

Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent counties from abolishing or consolidating agencies the existence of which has heretofore been mandated by State statute providing that such abolition or consolidation shall not alter the obligation of the county to continue providing the services previously provided by such abolished or consolidated agency.

The intent of this act is to enable a county that has adopted a charter pursuant to this act to cause any duty that has been mandated to it by the Legislature to be performed In the most efficient and expeditious manner, and, Absent a clear legislative declaration to the contrary, without regard to organizational, structural or personnel provisions contained in the legislation mandating such duty. (Emphasis supplied)

The welfare statute in question provides in pertinent part:

The board of chosen freeholders of each of the several counties shall cause to be established in the respective counties, where such is not already established, a county welfare board, having as one of its duties the supervision of old age assistance * * *. Such boards are hereby created corporate entities, with power to sue and be sued, to use a common seal and to make by-laws. The members of said welfare board shall be appointed by the boards of chosen freeholders in and for the respective counties * * *. (N.J.S.A. 44:7--7)

Does Title 44 of the New Jersey Statutes uncompromisingly call for a 'county welfare board'? The answer to this question lies not in the solitary reading of Title 44 but in an analysis of the mandates of Title 44 in light of the subsequent enactment of the act. N.J. State P.B.A. v. Morristown, 65 N.J. 160, 320 A.2d 465 (1974).

The act was adopted by the Legislature in response to the findings and reports of the County and Municipal Government Study Commission (Commission) which was created pursuant to L.1966, c. 28. The Commission was charged with the responsibility to study the structure and function of county and municipal governments and to inquire into the structural and administrative streamlining of county and municipal functions. The Commission published its findings, conclusions and recommendations in the report County Government: Challenge and Change (1969) (Challenge). On page XIX of Challenge the Commission lists its general recommendations, one of which is: Reorganize themselves (counties) As they see fit, under general law, including the right to consolidate agencies, boards and commissions. (Emphasis in the original).

The Commission further stated:

If the county is to play a wider role in local government, it must be given adequate legal authority. Specifically, we see the need for legal powers in the following areas: (1) Internal reorganization--with the power not only to reorganize or consolidate departments but to centralize functions now performed by autonomous boards, agencies and commissions where desirable. (Op. cit. at 17).

Indeed, the Commission itself alludes to the situation at hand in the following manner:

If county government is to run efficiently, the county must have the right to organize and control effectively and economically the services it provides and the agencies providing them. The Freeholders as elected...