that , like her retired colleagues , she would not have to pay for health insurance or prescription coverage in retirement . However , three weeks after the plaintiff submitted her papers , the county advised her that she would be required to pay for health insurance and prescription coverage in retirement based upon the provisions of Chapter 78 .
The association filed a grievance letter challenging the county ’ s refusal to abide by the terms of the agreement . The county prosecutor responded and advised the association that Chapter 78 conflicted with the requirements of the collective negotiations agreement . Accordingly , the county advised the association that it would not uphold the terms of the agreement and that the plaintiff would be required to pay a portion of her health benefits during her retirement .
The plaintiff then filed her lawsuit based upon breach of contract and equitable estoppel . The county initially argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute . The court easily rejected the county ’ s argument and concluded that it did have jurisdiction to resolve the issues of statutory interpretation which were involved in this case . The county made a number of additional arguments , including the claim that Chapter 78 superseded and preempted the CNA . The county also argued that the plaintiff could not be exempted from payment of health insurance and prescription coverage in retirement because she did not have 20 years of pensionable service as of the effective date of Chapter 78 .
In its decision , the court seemed to rely primarily both on the county ’ s actions in allowing 14 assistant prosecutors to retire without having to pay health insurance contributions in retirement and on commitments made to the association and its members during negotiations that it would continue to abide by the terms of the MOA and by the collective negotiations agreement even after the enactment of Chapter 78 . The court stated as follows :
At its core , the county knew section 78 would likely impact the CNA , but continued to negotiate the CNA and provide assurances
that the provisions and benefits relative to the Schedule A individuals would remain in place . The ( county ) allowed the negotiators of the CNA to believe that the benefit to Schedule A individuals was not an issue , thereby depriving plaintiff and other members of the Assistant Prosecutor ’ s Association from negotiating alternative benefits or attempting to offset the loss of paid health care benefits to the Schedule A individuals . The county exercised self-help by disavowing its promise to budget for and pay the medical benefits for some of the 45 individuals . This breached the county ’ s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing .
The court characterized the county ’ s conduct as a “ bold disregard ” for the consequences of its actions . Because of the unique circumstances in this case , the court concluded that the county could not create separate classes of the employees listed in Schedule A . It imposed a remedy which would ensure equality as to all 45 of the Assistant Prosecutors who were listed in the original MOA . The court did not specifically address one of the issues raised by the county – that the plaintiff did not have 20 years of pensionable service as of the effective date of Chapter 78 .
While this decision is a good one for the 45 assistant prosecutors listed in the MOA , it was based upon the unique circumstances of the case and may not have any application to the issues that we are litigating in Mercer County . The Passaic County case is now the second court decision which was favorable to employees . The first decision , which we reported on in the July 2016 issue of NJ COPS Magazine , concluded that officers who retire on disability retirements are not required to pay for health insurance in retirement , as long as the PBA Local contract did not require contributions . The Passaic County decision is also subject to appeal by the county , although no appeal has been filed as of this date . But while this decision has no precedential value at this point , any PBA Locals that believe they have similar circumstances in their jurisdictions should discuss the possible impact of this decision with their attorneys or the State PBA . We will keep the State PBA and it membership advised of any developments . d www . njcopsmagazine . com ■ JANUARY 2018 11