The routine work schedule of the individual is the ba-
sis for calculating the mandate obligation for the state
reimbursement. For example, law enforcement officers
or firefighters that do not work five days on/2 days off
schedules would be calculated on a case-by-case basis,
using the individual’s normal schedule.
In Boelter v. City of Coon Rapids, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D. Minn.
1999), decided by the Federal District Court in Minnesota, the
court was asked to interpret the Minnesota Military Leave Act,
which is very similar to the two New Jersey statutes. The statute
at issue in Minnesota entitled public employees to take military
leave without loss of pay or other employment benefits for a pe-
riod of up to 15 days. The defendant was a firefighter who worked
a 24-hour shift. The City implemented a policy that required the
firefighter to complete his 24-hour shift when his military train-
ing was over. The defendant objected, contending that under the
statute, he was to receive the full shift off with pay. The court held
for the defendant, stating that the statute at issue speaks in “terms
of days,” and there is nothing in the Minnesota statute to suggest
that the term “day” should be defined as anything less than a 24-
hour period.
Similarly, the New Jersey statute speaks in terms of “days.” Spe-
cifically, the statutes state that an employee shall be given “off
without loss of pay or time on all days during which he or she shall
be engaged in any period of state or federal active duty.” There is
nothing in the New Jersey statutes to suggest that a “day” is less
than a 24-hour period.
The New Jersey statutes at issue in this case go one step fur-
ther than the Minnesota statute. The New Jersey statutes use the
term “work days” when setting the maximum number of days off
with pay that an employer must recognize in a calendar year for
active duty. The Minnesota statute merely said that the employee
is allowed “15 days” of paid military time. Thus, even though the
Minnesota statute used the more generic term “days,” as opposed
to the more specific term “work days,” the federal court still held
that 15 days meant 15 full 24-hour shifts.
In South Brunswick and PBA Local 166, an arbitration handled
by our office, the Township attempted to define a “workday” as
eight hours for officers on active duty military leave, despite a
9.25- or 10.5-hour workday. In that case, the parties’ contract stat-
ed that officers receive military leave pay in accordance with state
and federal law. In sustaining the PBA’s grievance, the arbitrator
found that the Township violated the contractual requirement to
comply with the law because the law requires active duty military
leave to be based on the officer’s “workday,” not a standard eight-
hour workday. She ordered the Township to reinstate any contrac-
tual leave time deducted from officers’ banks and make any officer
whole who was negatively affected by the Township’s conversion
to an eight-hour day.
Two points: First, these statutes and precedent only apply to
active military duty deployment. Second, you still have to review
your contract to determine if your employer and PBA negotiated
the right to adjust your schedule from your regular schedule to a
standard 40-hour workweek (eight-hour days) to avoid paying for
more than 240 or 720 hours. If, however, as in the South Brunswick
arbitration, your contract simply says that the employer will com-
ply with the law, precedent clearly establishes that you are entitled
to active military leave based on the number of hours in your reg-
ular workday at the time of your deployment.
James M. Mets is a partner with Mets Schiro & McGoven, LLP, which
serves as labor counsel to numerous PBA Locals throughout the
state.
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ JANUARY 2019 25