Wed, 01/18/2012 - 2:50pm
CWA Wins Appellate Court Decision on PLB Days
As you know, the State was trying to force our members to use all PLB days by June 30, 2012 and violate the MOA that permitted carryover and cash out of PLB days. PLB days were agreed to between the unions and the State in exchange for agreements to defer contractual raises and to take furlough days.
The Appellate Court ruled that there was no Civil Service statute that limits the carryover of these paid leave days and that public policy is in favor of abiding by collectively bargained agreements.
This is an important decision for a number of reasons:
1. Our members made a great and responsible sacrifice in negotiating the MOA that included Furloughs and an 18 month wage freeze. In exchange for that sacrifice we negotiated seven additional leave days and the flexibility to use them over time or cash them out, given that furloughs would make it more difficult to use time, and the staff shortages caused by attrition make it very difficult to use time. If that agreement were allowed to be violated, union members would not be willing to negotiate such sacrifices in the future.
EVERY PART OF OUR MOA HAS HELD.
2. The court's decision recognizes that in is in the public interest to honor collective bargaining agreements. The Civil Service Commission did not recognize this important public interest when it promulgated a regulation that violated a key provision of the MOAs negotiated between the unions and the State. It is good to know that the Appellate Court still recognizes that such an action is contrary to public policy.
3. The Court also recognized that adopting a regulation thattreats PLB days as vacation days for carryover purposes could be an "impairment" of a "contract" and has afforded the unions the opportunity to address that issue before the Civil Service Commission should it be necessary. A contractual impairment may well be unconstitutional.
What happens now?
It is our belief that PLB days should now carry forward and over the next several days we will discuss this with the Civil Service Commission and the Administration with the hope that we can avoid further appeals or a new attempts to violate the MOA.
We will keep you informed but do not use any PLB days unless you want to.
That's great, but only benefits those individuals that decided to wait for this decision instead of taking all of your PLB. I took my PLB as we were told that if you didn't, I would loose them. Great victory..
The Division of State Police has notified us this morning that we MUST take unused PLB days by June 30, 2012. Please advise on the course of action we should take. Thank you.
What if you've already used your PLB days because you were told you would lose them, not because you wanted to? Is there any way to get them back, maybe trade vacation time that you currently have?
This is wonderful news. Congratulations.
I am sure you heard from many that some departments were told to take them a year or so ago.
Is there any chance these days already taken can be given back. Management should have consulted with the unions back when instead of insisting people take them immediately.
But thank you.
Ellen Dueltgen
Seems to me that, if "the court's decision recognizes that in is in the public interest to honor collective bargaining agreements... the Appellate Court still recognizes that such an action is contrary to public policy...impairment" of a "contract" and has afforded the unions the opportunity to address that issue before the Civil Service Commission...a contractual impairment may well be unconstitutional" underscores the fact that there may be a much larger issue here, given the fact that the majority of public workers, and certainly state workers, are still workeing without a contract since June 30th, 2011. Contract negotiation was previously conducted in good faith until the Christie administration, with the blessing and assistance of Sweeney and Oliver, leaned, pushed, and manipulated our legislators into a revisionist policy stance. This was a real back door deal, considering the language surrounding additional contributions with regard to pension and benefits specifically indicate that those workers "without a negotiated contract by June 28th, 2011" are suject to the changes. Does this not seem litigatable to CWA? Does the possiblity of repealing such a vote not seem indicated in the interest of due process? Would the Appellate (or another) Court not see the validity of such an argument. More should be happening here than rolling over like a puppy who has just been kicked, now awaiting a belly scratch from its tormentor!
What can State workers do if they were told by their Department that they must use their PLB days or be forced to lose them and ultimately were forced to used them prior to 6/30/2011?