P.E.R.C. No. 2013-6, Ramsey Boro

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF RAMSEY, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2012-015 RAMSEY PBA LOCAL NO. 155, Appellant. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission affirms an interest arbitration award. After remanding the initial award to the arbitrator and the issuance of a supplemental award, the PBA appeals two issues that are identical to the issues it raised in its initial appeal. The first issue is whether the arbitrator was correct in declining to include the cost savings from the retirement of a lieutenant when projecting salary costs for 2012. The second issue is whether the arbitrator adequately explained why he eliminated longevity for newly hired officers. Having directly addressed those issues in our initial decision, we deny the PBA’s appeal. ¶

This synopsis is not part of the Commission decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commission. ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of BOROUGH OF RAMSEY, Respondent, -and- Docket No. IA-2012-015 RAMSEY PBA LOCAL NO. 155, Appellant. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, Ruderman & Glickman, attorneys (Mark Ruderman, of counsel) ¶

For the Appellant, Loccke, Correia, Limsky & Bukosky, attorneys (Merick H. Limsky, of counsel) ¶

DECISION ¶

The Ramsey PBA Local No. 155 has filed an appeal of a supplemental interest arbitration award. The initial interest arbitration award was issued on April 17, 2012. The PBA appealed the initial award, asserting that the arbitrator computed base salary for 2011 in error by miscalculating when step movements occurred; the arbitrator should have taken into account the retirement of a lieutenant in projecting salary costs for 2012; and that the arbitrator did not adequately explain why he eliminated longevity for newly hired officers. In its opposition to the appeal, the Borough certified that the PBA’s contention as to when step movement occurred was in error, however, it also admitted that the scattergram it submitted to the arbitrator contained inaccurate salary/step movement with regard to two officers. On May 24, we issued a decision finding that the arbitrator was correct in declining to include the cost savings from the retirement of a lieutenant when projecting salary costs for 2012, and that he did adequately explain why he eliminated longevity for newly hired officers. However, we remanded the initial award to the arbitrator to provide a revised analysis for the Borough’s 2011 expenditure for base salary. P.E.R.C. No. 2012-60, ___ NJPER ___ (¶ ___ 2012). ¶

The arbitrator issued a supplemental award on July 9, 2012 and revised his calculations with the now accurate figures provided by the Borough. He reduced step movements and longevity payments to insure that the award would not exceed the statutorily mandated base salary cap of 2% per year. N.J.S.A. 34:13a-16.7 (b). The PBA’s appeal of the supplemental award raises two issues that are identical to the issues it raised in its initial appeal - - 1) whether the arbitrator was correct in declining to include the cost savings from the retirement of a lieutenant when projecting salary costs for 2012; and 2) whether the arbitrator adequately explained why he eliminated longevity for newly hired officers. We directly addressed those issues in our initial decision. The PBA’s appeal is denied. ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The PBA’s appeal is denied. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hatfield, Commissioners Bonanni, Boudreau and Eskilson voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. Commissioners Jones and Wall recused themselves. Commissioner Voos was not present. ¶

ISSUED: August 17, 2012 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶