NJ Trooper Award Enforcing Past Practice Over CBA Language Upheld On Appeal In New

In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association (STFA) filed a grievance alleging that the State of New Jersey, Division of State Police (NJSP) improperly calculated overtime rates by using the actual number of working days in each fiscal year, as dictated by Treasury Circulars, rather than the fixed 2,080-hour multiplier specified in the CBA. The CBA’s overtime provision stated: “All overtime shall be compensated as paid compensation at the time and one-half (1-1/2) rate, (the overtime rate shall be base plus maintenance divided by 2,080 x 1.5), unless the employee, at said employee’s sole option, elects to take compensation for overtime in compensatory time off (C.T.O.) which shall accumulate in a C.T.O. bank.” The STFA argued that the language unambiguously required the use of 2,080 hours as the divisor for calculating overtime rates, while the NJSP contended that the figure was only illustrative and that the actual number of working days should determine the divisor.

At arbitration, the STFA presented testimony from Steven Kuhn, its vice president, who stated that the 2,080- hour multiplier had been included in every CBA since 1987 and that the NJSP’s use of 2,096 hours in fiscal year 2020 reduced overtime pay by 62 cents per hour. The NJSP countered with testimony that the Treasury Circulars mandated state employees be paid based on the actual number of working days in a fiscal year, which could result in divisors of 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 hours, depending on the year.

The Arbitrator denied the STFA’s grievance, finding that the CBA’s reference to 2,080 hours was “illustrative and descriptive, instead of prescriptive.” The Arbitrator noted that the parties had used varying divisors for over 30 years, including in 1987 – the year the 2,080 figure was first introduced – when the actual working days would have required a divisor of 2,088.

The STFA sought to vacate the arbitration award in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, which denied the motion, ruling that the Arbitrator’s interpretation was “reasonably debatable” and thus not subject to nullification. The STFA appealed to the Appellate Division.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the highly deferential standard of review for arbitration awards. The Court noted that under New Jersey law, an arbitration award may only be vacated on specific statutory grounds, such as corruption, fraud, undue means, or the arbitrator’s exceeding their authority. The Court found none of these grounds present and added that even if the Arbitrator’s interpretation “was not the only one that could have flowed from the agreement and may not even have been the best one,” the award would still be confirmed if the conclusion was “reasonably debatable.”

The Appellate Division agreed with the Arbitrator that the CBA’s overtime provision was ambiguous. The parenthetical clause specifying the 2,080-hour divisor could reasonably be interpreted as either mandatory or illustrative. The Court noted that the provision’s opening reference to “time and one-half rate” suggested variability, as the term “time” could fluctuate based on actual working hours. The Court also found the Arbitrator’s reliance on extrinsic evidence – particularly the parties’ 30- year practice of using variable divisors – appropriate under New Jersey law, which permits such evidence to resolve ambiguous contractual terms.

The Court rejected the STFA’s argument that the Arbitrator had ignored unambiguous contract language, stating that the CBA’s wording was susceptible to multiple interpretations.
State Troopers Fraternal Ass’n v. Div. of State Police, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS *528 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025