Piscataway Township and the Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 93 are parties to a CBA covering the employment of Township police officers. The CBA includes the following policy regarding usage of personal days: “Each Employee shall be allowed four personal days in each calendar year of this Agreement. The Employer shall, furthermore, make every effort to revise such personnel policy so that, to the greatest extent possible, such personal days may be taken by employees when requested.” The CBA also imposes a minimum staffing requirement, which essentially permits up to two officers per shift to call out. Additionally, the CBA permits each officer once per year to force the Township to grant personal leave which would result in the affected shift being one officer below minimum staffing. Finally, the contract requires the responsible supervisor to seek a replacement for an officer who requests to use a personal day, so long as it is the officer’s first or second personal day of the year. On January 30, 2021, officer Nicholas Vaughn requested a personal day for February 1. His supervisor approved the request but rescinded the approval after realizing that two other officers had already been approved for time off during the relevant shift. Accordingly, Vaughn’s request could not be approved without running afoul of the CBA’s minimum staffing language. Vaughan did not elect to use his once-per-year exercise of personal leave. Vaughn’s supervisor, desiring not to pay another officer overtime wages to cover his absence, declined to secure a replacement for him. Vaughn had used at least two personal days already that year. Local 93 grieved, alleging that the Township did not follow proper procedures in denying his request for personal leave.
The Arbitrator agreed with Local 93, finding that the Township violated the contract by doing nothing to secure a replacement for Vaughn before denying his request. Specifically, this inaction violated the language requiring the Township to “make every effort to revise such personnel policy so that personal days may be taken by employees when requested.” The Township appealed the award, arguing that the Arbitrator improperly exceeded his authority by reading a term into the contract which did not exist – a requirement that the Township “always” seek replacement coverage for an officer under these circumstances. The Court was persuaded by the Township and ordered the Arbitrator to reconsider the matter, with directions to develop the record on whether certain types of absences triggered the minimum staffing requirement. Local 93 appealed the order.
The appellate court agreed that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority and ordered the Arbitrator to hold an additional hearing on the issue. In coming to this conclusion, the Court emphasized that (1) the CBA required the Township to search for a replacement for an officer requesting personal leave under some circumstances, but not in this circumstance; (2) Vaughn could have, but did not, force the Township to approve his personal leave by using his once-per-year right; (3) the CBA explained that manning, overtime decisions, and assignments are solely the prerogative of the Employer; and (4) the CBA language required the Township to “make every effort to revise personnel policy” to accommodate personal leave requests did not obligate the Township to make every effort to accommodate each individual request. Considering these facts, the Arbitrator’s conclusion that the Township was obligated to seek a replacement for Vaughn was unsupported by the record, and therefore, beyond the scope of his authority.
Township of Piscataway v. Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 93, Docket No. A-3175-22, 2024 WL 178216 (Super. Ct. N.J., 2024).