In re Brundage
| Decision Date | 29 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3466-17T3 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF ALAN BRUNDAGE, JOHN LADUCA, ROBERT CARNEY, III, MATTHEW TIEDEMANN, RONALD SALZANO, JOHN BAKER, GARY BENDIT, CHRISTOPHER CHAN, JASON GRETKOWSKI, MICHAEL MARCINIAK, JUSTIN GARCIA, PETER BONGIOVANNI, CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN, PETER FLANNERY, ROBERT HINTZEN, ANDREW KARA, ALEX ECHEVARRIA, MATTHEW BARTLETT, WILLIAM MCMONIGLE, FRANK CANEJA, CHRISTOPHER TINIO, MICHAEL DEVINE, JOHN PALETTO, JEREMIAH NAYDA, DENISE R. RYABY, THOMAS MILLER, BRUCE REED, DANIEL ANTINORI, STANISLAV TOVBIN, GABRIEL R. ESCOBAR, FRANK CARRAFIELLO, DARIO A. VARGAS, VINCENT MAYO, VICTORIA ALBERTO, JAMES E. SMITH, JOSEPH PRIDE, ROBERT ESPINOSA, JAMES MULLIN, DANIEL SANSAVERE, JACEK DEMCZUK, SARA TORO, WENDY TINIO, GIDGET-ANN PETRY, OSCAR LOPEZ, and BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Rothstadt and Moynihan.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2018-307.
Loccke Correia & Bukosky, attorneys for appellant Bergen County PBA Local 49 (Michael Albert Bukosky, of counsel and on the briefs; Corey Michael Sargeant, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
This matter presents the latest appeal arising from the Bergen County Sheriff's Office's (BCSO) absorption of the former Bergen County Police Department (BCPD), and the BCSO's termination of former BCPD officers pursuant to a layoff plan approved by the Civil Service Commission's (CSC). In this appeal, the Police Benevolent Association, Local 49 (PBA), as a representative of appellants, the BCPD officers impacted by the layoff plan, appeals from the CSC's March 29, 2018 final agency decision finding that its Division of Appeals & Regulatory Affairs (Agency Services) correctly determined the layoff rights of the affected BCPD police officers. In reaching its decision, the CSC incorporated the reasoning from its June 7, 2017 decisiondenying the PBA a stay of the Agency Services' approval of the BCSO's layoff plan.
On appeal, the PBA argues that the CSC "did not properly" determine the officers' "displacement rights"; failed to "follow the statutory requirement[s]" for layoffs being made "from an entire department not a target[ed] division"; failed to conduct an analysis comparing the duties of the sheriff's officers and the county police officers, which have been determined to be "interchangeable as a matter of law," or issue "a reasoned explanation based upon specific findings of fact." We disagree and affirm because the PBA failed to establish that the determination of appellants' layoff rights was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The details of the realignment of the two law enforcement agencies is set forth in our earlier opinion dismissing as moot the PBA's appeal from the CSC's denial of the stay of the layoff plan's implementation. See In re Layoffs of Bergen Cty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Bergen Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. A-4103-16 (App. Div. Apr. 18, 2019) (slip op. at 3-4).1 There, we explained that after therealignment, the BCPD officers were to be part of a separate unit within the BCSO. Id., slip op. at 5. Although it was originally contemplated that BCPD officers were to be eliminated over time through attrition, circumstances changed in March 2017, when the BCSO reevaluated its needs due to new courthouse security plans promulgated by our Supreme Court. Id. slip op. at 5-7. The BCSO submitted to the CSC a new layoff plan that called for the reduction in the BCPD officers so that the new BCSO officers could be hired to meet the staffing requirements for the security plans. Id. slip op. at 6-7. In formulating the layoff plan, the BCSO considered alternatives, including lateral transfers of the BCPD officers, but found they were not "the best means of achieving . . . the goals of efficiency and economy in the operations of the [BCSO] in furtherance of the public interest." Id. slip op. at 7 (alterations in original).
Despite the PBA's petition, on April 24, 2017, Agency Services approved the BCSO layoff plan without any "mention of the PBA's petition." Id. slip op. at 8. The PBA then sought a stay of the plan's implementation. Ibid. At that time, among other reasons, the PBA argued the layoff plan was not adopted in good faith, the contemplated layoff unit should have included the entire BCSO, and the plan violated the BCPD officers' statutory rights under N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1. It argued that the entire department should be considered as the layoff unit because the roles of the BCSO officers and the BCPD officers were identical, and with minimal training, the BCPD officers could qualify to serve as BCSO officers.
"[O]n June 7, 2017, the CSC issued a final decision denying the PBA's request for a stay." Id. slip op. at 10. In the CSC's decision it "addressed eachof the PBA's contentions and explained in detail why it concluded that the PBA failed to meet the criteria for a stay under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.2." Ibid.
In the decision, the CSC addressed the PBA's claims about the need to expand the layoff unit to the entire BCSO and its view that sheriff's officers and county police officers had nearly identical titles and duties. The CSC found that the roles of the BCPD officers and the BCSO officers differed from one another. It indicated that the differences and responsibilities were "consistent with classification studies and evaluations conducted by the [f]ederal government." The CSC explained that the BCPD officers and the BCSO officers fall into two different occupational categories, even though they were under the same class code.
Based on the United States Department of Labor's (USDOL) Standard Occupational Classification System, the BCPD officers fell under the category of "Police Officers and Detectives, Public Service," which included the following occupations: those "concerned with patrolling assigned beat on foot, on motorcycle, in patrol car, or on horseback to control traffic, preventing crime or disturbance of peace, arresting violators, noting suspicious persons and establishments, submitting reports to superior officer, dispersing unruly crowds at public gatherings, and issuing tickets to traffic violators." On the other hand,the BCSO officers were considered under the category of "Sheriffs and Bailiffs," which included those "concerned with enforcing law and order in unincorporated districts, maintaining order in court and serving summonses."
Further, unlike the BCPD officers, under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-117.6, sheriff's officers "perform the duties involved in attending the courts . . . or in serving court processes, or in the investigation and apprehension of violators of the law, or in criminal identification, or in ballistics, or in any related work" determined appropriate for a sheriff's officer. The CSC also described the functions of the BCPD officers under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-107, which included enforcement of:
The CSC also compared those duties and gave examples of work for both positions as indicated in certain worksheets. Based on the differences between county police officers' duties and those of sheriff's officers, the CSC determined the two positions were different under N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.1(a).
Addressing the PBA's argument that the layoff unit should be expanded, the CSC concluded that there was not "any unique circumstances . . . in this matter to relax the rules for an expansion of the layoff unit." The CSC found that this case was distinguishable from In re Donohue, 329 N.J. Super. 488 (2000), a case relied upon by the PBA, because that case dealt with a plan that "impact[ed] a common title." In Donohue, the reorganization was different than the BCPD's "realignment" with the BCSO because "the [BCPD] Officers . . . were not separated from their autonomous agency at any time."
The CSC held that Agency Services properly approved the BCSO's layoff plan for "economy and efficiency" and that alternatives were not feasible. It further held that the PBA's argument that the BCPD officers should be reassigned to the BCSO roles was not ripe for consideration. Instead, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial