Sean McManus, CSC Docket No. 2024-249

BackgroundThe Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, vacated and remanded the decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) which denied the reconsideration request of Sean McManus, a Conservation Police Officer 21 with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), concerning his grievance on the rate of his cash overtime compensation for emergency-related work. See In the Matter of Sean McManus, Docket No. A-0845-20 (App. Div. August 1, 2023). The court did not retain jurisdiction. A copy of the Appellate Division’s decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

By way of background, at the time of his grievance, McManus was serving as a Conservation Officer 3, a non-limited, non-exempt (NE) title where, instead of having a workweek fixed at 35 hours, McManus was required to work at least 35 hours per week with occasional requirements for a longer workweek. The DEP was granted funding for an overtime project where it paid employees for the hours worked between 35 and 40 hours per week based at the hourly proration of their base salary, while overtime after 40 hours was compensated at one-and-one-half times that rate. McManus filed a grievance stating that the State was now an employer subject to the recently modified New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (Wage and Hour Law) and the DEP’s method of calculating his overtime conflicted with the statute. The DEP denied his grievance and McManus appealed to the Commission. The Commission found that the Wage and Hour Law only covered the State as an “employer” for the purpose of ensuring payment of the minimum wage, which McManus’ salary exceeded. It noted that McManus served in a NE title which had the same class code as comparable titles with a fixed 35-hour workweek, but the salary range was one higher to compensate for the occasional longer workweek. Further, it indicated that NE titles are only eligible for cash overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Therefore, the Commission denied McManus’ appeal, as it found that the DEP properly calculated his compensation in compliance with Civil Service regulations. See In the Matter of Sean McManus (CSC, decided April 15, 2020). It also denied McManus’ request for reconsideration. See In the Matter of Sean McManus (CSC, decided November 4, 2020). Thereafter, McManus appealed to the Appellate Division and the Commission moved for remand, which was granted by order dated December 7, 2021, to clarify its prior decision due to factual issues that arose. Upon remand, the Commission reaffirmed its prior decision. See In the Matter of Sean McManus (CSC, decided November 4, 2020). The Commission reiterated that the NE position is at a higher salary range than comparable 35-hour per week titles to account for the occasional requirement to work more than 35 hours per week up to 40 hours per week, and, therefore, overtime was not required to be paid during this time. McManus pursued a second appeal to the Appellate Division.

1 At the time of McManus’ grievance, he was serving as a Conservation Officer 3. He was then promoted to Conversation Officer 2 effective December 18, 2021. On January 1, 2022, the title’s name changed to Conservation Police Officer 2.

AnalysisUpon its review, in In the Matter of Sean McManus, Docket No. A-0845-20 (App. Div. August 1, 2023), the court found that under the Wage and Hour Law, McManus’ hours worked between 35 and 40 hours were to be calculated as overtime wages and the Commission wrongly relied on Civil Service regulations when calculating his overtime compensation. Therefore, the Appellate Division vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded the matter to the Commission for a recalculation of McManus’ overtime based on the Wage and Hour Law. Specifically, the Appellate Division found that:

By using the “the hourly proration of the employee’s annual base salary” in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:3-5.2, the Commission’s calculations improperly excluded petitioner’s earnings for the hours for which he was compensated between thirty-five and forty. This is inconsistent with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(e), which requires an employee’s “total earnings for the week” to be utilized in computing an employee’s “regular hourly wage.” Similarly, the

Commission’s utilization of N.J.A.C. 12:56-6.6(a)(4) is unpersuasive.

N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(e) does not exclude wages earned during the week, even if the wages were discretionary. The Commission’s methodology must use the framework of the Wage and Hour Law when calculating petitioner’s overtime, and the regular hourly wage figure derived from

N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(e) must, in turn, be utilized when calculating overtime pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1).

In short, the Commission’s decision was untethered to N.J.S.A.

34:11-56a1(e) and N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1), and it did not properly consider the specific calculation required under these statutes when determining petitioner’s overtime, but instead relied on its own regulations. Therefore, we remand for the Commission to calculate petitioner's overtime in accordance with this opinion.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the Appellate Division’s opinion, the Commission’s prior decision in this matter has been vacated and thus, McManus is entitled to have his cash overtime compensation for emergency-related work between 35 and 40 hours per week recalculated during the period in question. The Commission orders that this rate be calculated by DEP consistent with the statutory provisions set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(e) and N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1). The DEP is directed to thereafter compensate McManus accordingly.

ORDER

The Commission’s orders that the DEP recalculate Sean McManus’ rate of cash overtime compensation for emergency-related work between 35 and 40 hours per week during the period in question in accordance with the statutory provisions set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1(e) and N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4(b)(1), and thereafter, compensate McManus accordingly.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.