S.G., CSC Docket No. 2025-2240

BackgroundS.G., a Police Officer with Jersey City, requests enforcement of In the Matter of S.G. (CSC, decided June 26, 2019).

As background, the petitioner appealed her rejection as a Police Officer candidate by Jersey City and its request to remove her name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999U) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position. Since the appointing authority had not supported its burden of proof, upon the successful completion of her working test period, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) ordered that the petitioner be granted a retroactive date of appointment to July 5, 2018, the date she would have been appointed if her name had not been removed from the eligible list. This date was for “salary step placement and seniority-based purposes only. However, the Commission [did] not grant any other relief, such as back pay or counsel fees, except the relief enumerated above.” See S.G., supra. The record reflects that the petitioner is employed in the position and that the retroactive date of appointment of July 5, 2018 has been recorded in the County and Municipal Personnel System.

Appellant's argumentIn her request to the Commission, filed April 16, 2025, the petitioner indicates that she has been employed with the Jersey City Police Department since July 8, 2019, when she was assigned to the police academy for training, with the appointment date being retroactive to July 5, 2018. She states that upon the 2023 implementation of a Unicorn System, where officers have to clock in, errors began with respect to her salary steps, longevity, and medical benefits: she was on the wrong steps, missing longevity, and being charged a medical surcharge (or “extra fee”). Specifically, the petitioner explains that officers hired after January 1, 2019 do not receive longevity and receive the “inferior and cheaper” OMNIA medical benefits plan but have the option to pay extra to receive the Direct Access plan. The petitioner contends that as she received a retroactive date of appointment prior to January 1, 2019, i.e., July 5, 2018, she is entitled to be enrolled in the Direct Access plan without any surcharge. The petitioner also states while she “[has] received [her] longevity through [her] employer, [it] was implemented incorrectly.” In summary, the petitioner seeks relief in the following areas:

• Salary pay step adjustments effective January 1, 2023 ($75,000 to $76,500); July 1, 2023 ($76,500 to $81,600); January 1, 2024 ($81,600 to $85,680); and January 1, 2025 ($81,600 to $89,760)

• Reimbursement for the medical surcharges that have been taken out of her paychecks since the inception of the Unicorn System

• Accurate reflection of her correct appointment date of July 5, 2018 in her department’s records across all platforms (Member Benefits Online System; Police Training Commission; Unicorn; Jersey City Police Department records) as medical benefits are part of her salary, deducted from her paycheck based on her appointment year and salary amount

In support, the petitioner submits various documents, including the December 28, 2018 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Jersey City and the Jersey City Police Officers’ Benevolent Association (POBA) for the January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2020 term, which provides in relevant part:

Officers hired on or after January 1, 2019 shall be required to enroll in the Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield OMNIA Plan as provided in the description of coverage, or a High Deductible Plan offered by the City.

Alternatively, any officer hired on or after January 1, 2019 may elect to enroll in any other plan offered by the City but shall pay the difference in cost that is greater than OMNIA plus their Chapter 78 contribution.

All other officers may voluntarily elect to participate in the OMNIA plan. Any officer who voluntarily participates in the OMNIA plan shall receive a bonus of $500.00 for single coverage and $1000.00 for all other plans payable in November of each year he/she participates.

...

Effective January 1, 2019, officers hired on or after January 1, 2013 and prior to January 1, 2019 shall receive Longevity when eligible in accordance with the percentages set forth on the post-January 1, 2013 longevity scale.

...

Officers hired on or after January 1, 2019 shall not be eligible for

Longevity payments.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the appointing authority, represented by Chaunelle Robinson, First Assistant Corporation Counsel, contends that any police recruit’s hire date may be different from their actual appointment date. Notably, according to the appointing authority, the Commission’s prior decision was silent as to the petitioner’s hire date with Jersey City. This is important because the benefits the petitioner seeks in this request are determined by hire date as per the contract that her union, the POBA, bargained with Jersey City in the MOA. On December 19, 2019, the petitioner was sworn in as a Police Officer with Jersey City. Hence, her hire date is December 19, 2019. Therefore, per the terms of the MOA, the petitioner is rightfully enrolled in health insurance benefits under OMNIA and/or paying an additional surcharge for benefits under the Direct Access plan. The appointing authority urges that the Commission’s decision did not apply to the administration of health benefits as governed by the contract between Jersey City and the POBA.

Appellant's argumentIn reply, the petitioner reiterates that she should receive everything (longevity, salary steps, and medical) that she would have received had she never been disqualified due to psychological unfitness.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(b) provides that unless a different time period is stated, an appeal must be filed within 20 days after either the appellant has notice or should reasonably have known of the decision, situation, or action being appealed.

AnalysisThe appellant has the burden of proof in this matter. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c).

Initially, it is noted that the instant request is untimely. The petitioner indicates that the problems of which she complains began in 2023, yet the instant request was not filed until April 2025. But even assuming a timely filing, the Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter. The issues of longevity and whether the petitioner is entitled to be enrolled in the Direct Access medical plan without the assessment of any surcharge are governed by the collective negotiations agreement (CNA) between Jersey City and the POBA. The Commission generally does not enforce or interpret items that are contained in a CNA between the employer and the majority representative. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Sienkiewicz, Bobby Jenkins and Frank Jackson, Docket No. A-1980-99T1 (App. Div., May 8, 2001). The proper forum to bring such concerns is the Public Employment Relations Commission. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c). The Commission also cannot address the petitioner’s complaint that she has not been on the correct salary step since 2023. This is in fact a dispute over salary. Salary disputes in local service are not reviewable by the Commission unless the salary of the employee is outside the established range for the job title. In this regard, N.J.S.A. 11A:3-7d and N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.1(a)2 provide that when a salary range is established for a job title, an employee shall not be paid a base salary below the minimum or above the maximum established for that range. There is no evidence that the instant matter implicates such issue. Accordingly, there is nothing for the Commission to “enforce” in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request for enforcement be denied.

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