What is “ Just Cause ” and How to Prove it
By Fredric M . Knapp , Esq .
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | September 2022
One of the most difficult facets of law enforcement management is determining whether or not to issue disciplinary charges to a police officer . In most cases , other than those involving criminal allegations , a determination of ‘ just cause ’ must be made . The difficulty for a Chief or Superior Officer is deciding whether the circumstances warrant disciplinary action . New Jersey ascribes to the traditional concept of ‘ just cause ’. The courts of New Jersey have examined the core issue of ‘ just cause ’ and upheld the ability of arbitrators , and other factfinders , to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted under the factual circumstances . This article is intended to provide some guidance as to the standards applied by the courts , arbitrators , and hearing officers in determining whether or not the employer has met its burden .
Under New Jersey law and traditional labor relations principles , whenever an employer is seeking to take disciplinary action the employer has the burden of proof whether it be an administrative tribunal , court , or arbitration . The standard applied has been whether or not reasonable or ‘ just cause ’ has been established to warrant the imposition of the discipline . In the case of County College of Morris Staff Association and County of Morris , 100 N . J . 383 ( 1985 ) the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the authority of the labor arbitrator to impose disciplinary action , although not termination , for ‘ just cause ’ in accordance with the terms of the Collective Negotiations Agreement between the parties . In County College of Morris , supra ., the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the arbitrator to read into the contract a condition not required by the Agreement : the necessity for incremental or progressive discipline . The court stated “ it is of no moment that the parties ’ contract did not provide specifically for discipline short of discharge . The arbitrator was not forced to make the difficult choice between dismissing the employee or imposing no discipline at all , for a series of options was available .” Id . at 394 . One key in determining whether to uphold the discipline , and not termination , was the framing of the issue which is critical in any arbitration case . Therein , the court explained that the issue clearly framed by the arbitrator demonstrated that he was aware that the option of imposing some lesser penalty was available under appropriate circumstances . The arbitrator ’ s opinion listed the issues as follows :
Is [ the employee ] guilty as charged in the memorandum of record , dated October 15 , 1982 ? If so , is the penalty of discharge imposed on October 8 , 1982 appropriate ? If not , what penalty , if any , is appropriate ?
Thus , although the contract did not specifically provide for progressive discipline , the arbitrator read that into the agreement and his decision was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court . Three ( 3 ) decades later , in Linden Board of Education vs . Linden Education Association 202 N . J . 268 ( 2009 ), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the ability of the arbitrator to decide not only whether discipline should be imposed , but also the quantum of discipline to be imposed . The Court upheld the arbitrator ’ s interpretation of the phrase “ proper cause ” in the contract and his authority to impose a progressive discipline system upon the parties in the absence of specific language providing for the same .
Accordingly , Chiefs and other public sector administrators should take note that a hearing officer , arbitrator , or administrative law Judge may exercise such authority , even where the parties did not specifically agree to the same . Practitioners have generally ascribed to a traditional seven ( 7 ) item test for ‘ just cause ’. They may be summarized as follows :
1 . Notice- was the employee adequately warned of the consequences of his or her conduct ? In other words , did the employer have clear rules of conduct at the work place , either written or oral , including the consequences for violating such rules .
2 . Was the employer ’ s rule or order reasonably related to efficient and safe operations ? The employer ’ s rule may not be arbitrary , capricious , or discriminatory , and must be related to the employer ’ s stated goals and objectives .
3 . Investigation- did management investigate before administering the discipline ? The burden is on the employer to gather all the facts , documents , and witnesses before imposing any discipline .
4 . Was the investigation fair and objective ? Not only must the investigation be fair , it must also be timely with respect to statutory and administrative requirements such as those set forth in applicable New Jersey case law , statutes , and Attorney General Guidelines .
5 . Did the investigation produce substantial evidence of proof of guilt ? The conclusions of guilt must be supported by the evidence .
11
Continued on next page