LGS reverses Chapter 78 interpretation
In the August 2016 issue of NJ Cops Magazine, we reported about an email that was being circulated from an attorney for the Division of Local Government Services( LGS) offering an interpretation of Chapter 78, which appeared to be helpful to employees who did not have 20 years of service as of June 28, 2011, the effective date of Chapter 78. Under this interpretation, a member who did not have 20 years of pensionable service as of June 28, 2011, but who did reach that threshold before the expiration of a contract that was in effect on that date, might not be required to pay health insurance contributions in retirement if the PBA Local’ s contract required the employer to provide no-cost insurance. At that time, we cautioned officers not to retire based solely on that interpretation because it was not binding, and because it differed from the interpretation of the Division of Pensions and Benefits( DPB).
Very recently, the same LGS attorney who issued that August email distributed a new email retracting his interpretation based upon discussions with the Attorney General and with DPB. The LGS now agrees with the DPB. Specifically, if an officer did not have 20 years of service as of June 28, 2011, that officer would have to make contributions in retirement for health insurance benefits even if there was a contract in effect on that date.
Like the previous LGS interpretation, this interpretation is not binding but is now consistent with another state agency. The NJ State PBA continues to disagree with this interpretation, which will be tested in litigation in which the State PBA will participate. The State PBA has been actively seeking a test case. Any PBA Locals with members who have been adversely affected should contact the State PBA if litigation will commence. As of this writing, the State PBA is not aware of any pending litigation.
Court limits access to special discharge arbitration procedures
Recently, the Appellate Division issued two companion decisions that limit the ability of law enforcement officers to use a special arbitration process if they have been suspended without pay pending termination. In Isaacson v. PERC and Hardyston Twp. and Isaacson v. Hardyston, the court held that law enforcement officers who are terminated based upon conduct that could constitute a crime, but who were not actually charged with any criminal conduct, could not use the special
10 NEW JERSEY COPS ■ MARCH 2017