14
NEW JERSEY COPS ■ AUGUST 2014
Court imposes new hurdles for special disciplinary arbitration
The Appellate Division recently issued a decision that impacts police officers in non-civil service municipalities who are facing termination or
suspension without pay for disciplinary charges.
As you may know, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-209 provides
that officers in non-civil service jurisdictions may
seek arbitration of a termination rather than challenge the charges in Superior Court. Under the
law, PERC provides the arbitrator from its special
Robert A.
disciplinary arbitration panel. The court’s deciFagella, Esq.
sion in Township of Hardyston v. Isaacson adds a
significant hurdle which never existed before
regarding the arbitrator-appointment procedure.
It will have an impact on the officer facing charges and the
municipality because of the 180-day statute, and may increase
the costs of litigating these cases for municipalities and for the
LPP While we have been very critical of PERC in the past few
.
years for a number of its decisions, PERC in this case processed
the matter correctly. It was the Appellate Division that wrongly
decided the case.
The facts are not complicated. A police officer from Hardyston stopped a driver with an outstanding warrant in Franklin,
but told the dispatcher that he was in Hardyston. He also issued
two summonses on which he also indicated that he was in
Hardyston. The police department suspected that he lied about
his location and conducted an internal affairs inves Y