In the Matter of Atlantic City Layoff CSC Docket N o. 2010-3004 (Civil Service Commission, decided Apr i l 28, 2010) The I nter nat i onal Associ at i on of Fir e Fight er s L ocal 198, t he Pol i ce Officer s Benevol ent Associ at i on L ocal 24, t he Super i or Officer s Association, and the Atlantic Ci t y Whi t e Col l ar Pr ofessi onal Associ at i on, r epr esented by Rober t F. O Bri en, Esq. 1, and t he Gover nment Wor ker s U ni on (GWU) pet i t i on t he Ci vil Ser vice Commi ssi on (Commi ssi on) for a st ay of t he l ayoff of empl oyees i n Atlanti c Cit y (City). The Police Officer s Benevol ent Associ at i on L ocal 24 (PBA) al so pet i t i ons for a st ay on i t s own behalf. By way of background, on March 12, 2010, the City submitted a layoff plan to t he Di vi si on of St at e and L ocal Oper at i ons, pr oposi ng t he l ayoff of 48 empl oyees for r easons of economy and effici ency. The pl an was amended on Apr i l 15, 2010 t o add an addi t i onal 16 empl oyees. The Ci t y s l ayoff pl an expl ai ned t hat a number of t he ci vili an posi t i ons t ar get ed i n t he l ayoff pl an wer e redundant or ar e nonessenti al functions which the City can no longer afford. The City anticipated a savings of $2.7 mil li on i n salar y and benefit s i f t he plan wer e appr oved, whi ch woul d pr ovide savings essential to balancing its budget. The City s layoff plan also detailed act i ons i t t ook and wil l conti nue t o expl or e, pursuant t o N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3, t o l essen the possibility of layoffs, including implementing a hiring freeze, assisting affected empl oyees wi t h securi ng al t er nat e empl oyment, and r equest ing i nfor mat i on from SL O r egar di ng i nter gover nmental t r ansfer s and ot her job oppor t uni t i es. I t al so i ndi cat ed t hat i t was consi der i ng t he separ at i on of non-per manent empl oyee wher e possible. In addition, the City reported that it met with the PBA and other affected police unions i n December 2009 t o di scuss al t er nat ives t o t he pr oposed l ayoffs i n t he Pol i ce Depar t ment. I t al so asser t ed t hat i t met wi t h t he Co-Pr esi dent of t he U ni t ed Wor ker s U ni on L ocal 910, r epr esenti ng super visor y st aff, and t he N at i onal Pr esi dent of t he GWU on M ar ch 1, 2010 t o not i fy t hem of t he pr oposed l ayoff and seek t hei r i nput on possi bl e alt er nat i ves. On M ar ch 9, 2010, the Admi ni st r at i on met wi t h r epr esentat i ves of al l Ci t y uni ons t o di scuss t he pr oposed l ayoffs. The City stated that no viable alternat i ves have been i denti fied al t hough al l par t i es conti nue t o di scuss possi bl e opt i ons. SL O r eviewed and appr oved t he Ci t y s layoff pl an, wi t h an effect i ve dat e of M ay 28, 2010. The foll owi ng posi t i ons ar e t ar get ed in t he appr oved l ayoff pl an: 1 Pol i ce Chi ef 2 Deputy Poli ce Chi efs 1 These uni ons ar e her ei n coll ect ively r efer r ed t o as t he Coali t i on of Atl ant ic Cit y Public Sect or U nions. Al t hough M r. O Brien also purpor t s t o r epr esent member s of t he Blue Collar union and t he I nter nat i onal Brot her hood of El ect r ical Wor k er s L ocal 351, he has not ident ifi ed any member s of these bargaining units as targets in this layoff.
4 Police Captains 8 Pol i ce L i eutenants 16 Pol i ce Ser geants 20 Pol i ce Officer s 2 Bat t ali on Fir e Chi efs 1 Assistant Youth Opportunity Coordinator 1 Executi ve Di r ect or, H uman Rel at i ons Commi ssi on 1 Assist ant Business Administ r at or 1 Super i ntendent of Recr eat i on 1 Di r ect or, Communi t y Devel opment Pr ogr am 1 Municipal Recycling Coordinator 1 Seni or Engi neer, Ci vil 1 Chi ef Publi c Safet y Tel ecommuni cat or 2 Assistant Planning Directors 1 Publi c I nfor mat i on Officer I n i t s r equest for a st ay of t he pr oposed l ayoff, t he Coali t i on of Atl anti c Cit y Publi c Sect or U ni ons (Coal i t i on), whi ch r epr esents empl oyees i n t he t i t l es of Battalion Fire Chief, Fire Captain, Fire Official, UFD, Fire Fighter, Police Captain, Pol i ce L i eutenant, Pol i ce Ser geant, Police Sergeant, Bilingual in Spanish and English, Police Officer, Police Officer, Bilingual in Spanish and English, and Senior Engi neer, Ci vil, contends t hat i t has pr oposed sever al viabl e al t er nat ives t o t he pr oposed layoff. Fir st, it suggest s t hat, if t he Ci t y agr eed t o i ncr ease i t s contr i buti on t o r et i r ees heal t h i nsurance pr emi ums for empl oyees r et i r i ng on or after Sept ember 1, 2010, a subst anti al number of seni or empl oyees woul d r et i r e, allowing the City to realize significant savings. 2 The Coal i t ion alleges that, if the Ci t y wer e t o agr ee t o pay 95% of t he r et i r ees heal t h i nsurance pr emi ums, as opposed t o t he 75% i t pr esentl y pays, i t beli eves t hat appr oximat ely 12 Fir e Depar t ment empl oyees, si x super visor y Pol i ce empl oyees, and 22 Poli ce Officer s woul d be i nduced t o r et i r e. I n addi t i on, i t asser t s t hat addi t i onal empl oyees i n t he Bl ue Col l ar uni on (four empl oyees), t he Atl anti c Ci t y Whi t e Col l ar Pr ofessi onal Associ at i on (20 empl oyees), and t he Super visor s U ni on (20 empl oyees) may r et i r e with such an i ncentive. The Coali t i on est i mat es t hat t hese r et i r ements woul d result in approximately $2.4 million in savings for the City. The Coalition also submi t s t hat, under t he curr ent col l ect i ve negot i at i ons agr eements wi t h t he Pol i ce and Fi r e Depar t ment empl oyees, empl oyees ar e enti t l ed t o a lump sum t er mi nal l eave payment i mmedi at el y upon r et i r ement. The Coali t i on r epr esents t hat it woul d be will i ng t o agr ee t o have t er mi nal l eave payments defer r ed and be pai d over a t hree-year per i od st ar t i ng on January 1, 2011. I n addition, the Coalition asserts that substantial savings can be achieved by de-privatizing Emergency Management Services, privatizing the library or consolidating it with the County s 2 The r ecor d r eflect s t hat t he Coali t i on fir st pr oposed t his r et ir ement incent ive pr ogr am t o t he Cit y by letter dated March 8, 2010.
l i br ar y syst em, i mplementi ng r ecommendat i ons made by t he St at e Compt r ol l er following an audit of the City s finances, and converting to a private disability plan. The Coal i t i on mai ntai ns t hat t he pr oposed l ayoff woul d have a del et er i ous effect on t he Ci t y. I t contends t hat appr oximat el y 240,000 peopl e visit the City ever y day, and t he Ci t y s empl oyees ar e char ged wi t h ser ving t hese visi t or s i n addition to the 40,000 residents of the City. The Coalition asserts that curtailing t he ser vices of t he publ i c empl oyees woul d negat i vel y i mpact t he Ci t y s heal th, safety, and appearance, negatively impacting tourism, which is already exper i enci ng t he negat i ve effect s of t he fal t er i ng economy. Additionally, the Coalition submits a copy of a list of employees, which it asser t s is indicat ive of t he Cit y s bad faith in implementing the layoff. The Coal i t i on all eges t hat t hi s l i st was pr epar ed by t he M ayor wi t h names of peopl e t o be let go which we believe was wrongfully and politically underpinned. This document pr ovides, i n i t s enti r et y: February 22, 2010 Art Bunting, 3 As per t he M ayor : 1. John I mfel d, Executi ve Assi st ant 2. Gwendol yn L ewis, Executi ve Assi st ant 3. Umar Salahuddin, Assistant Youth Coordinator 4. L awton N el son, Jr., Executi ve Dir ect or H uman Rel at i ons 5. Dominic Cappella, Asst. Business Administrator 6. Sher mai ne Gunter-Gar y, Super i ntendent of Recr eat i on 7. L oi s Brai t hwai t e, Di r ect or Communi t y Devel opment 8. Harriann Bernstein, Municipal Recycling Coordinator 9. M i chael H euber ger, Bat t ali on Fir e Chi ef 10. Paul Shropshire, Battalion Fire Chief Thank you. M or eover, t he Coal i t ion asser t s t hat, despi t e i mpl ementi ng a hir i ng freeze i n Apr i l 2009, t he Ci t y has hi r ed 26 new employees, i ncl udi ng a Wei ghts and M easures Super i ntendent, a Publ i c Safet y Di r ect or, a Cul t ural Di ver si t y Coor di nat or, and a Speci al Counsel t o defend t he M ayor. The Coal i t i on al so contends t hat, al t hough t he pr oposed l ayoff t ar get s a Seni or Engi neer, Ci vil, t he Ci t y has r ecentl y 3 According to media accounts submitted by the parties, Mr. Bunting is a budget consultant with the City.
adver t i sed a vacancy i n t he t i t l e of Muni ci pal Engi neer. I t not es t he r ecent pr omot i onal oppor t uni t i es for t he t i t l es of Seni or Publ i c Safet y Tel ecommuni cat or and Supervising Public Safety Telecommunicator, while the City is proposing the l ayoff of t he Chief Publ i c Safet y Tel ecommuni cat or. The Coali t ion all eges t hat t he Ci t y has hi r ed pr ovisi onal empl oyees in t he t i t l es of Pr ogr am Coor di nat or, Demol i t i on, and H or t i cul t uri st, whil e pr oposi ng t he l ayoff of per manent empl oyees in the title of Municipal Recycling Coordinator and Senior Engineer, Civil. It quest i ons t he r ecent hi r i ng of t hree par t -t i me Recr eat i on Att endants, whi l e t he Super i ntendent of Recr eat i on i s bei ng l ai d off, and t he Coal i t i on emphasi zes t hat t he Ci t y seeks t o l ayoff t he Executi ve Di r ect or, H uman Rel at i ons Commi ssi on, whil e it intends to hire a Director of Cultural Diversity. Additionally, the Coalition cites t he M ayor s r ecent act i on i n awar di ng a 4% wage i ncr ease t o non-r epr esented empl oyees as evidence t hat t he Ci t y i s not pursui ng ot her avail abl e avenues of savings. According to media accounts submitted by the Coalition, this 4% salary i ncr ease was awar ded t o 17 empl oyees i n December 2009. M ayor L angfor d s spokesper son i ndi cat ed t hat t he i ncr eases wer e i ntended t o mir r or t he contr act ual sal ar y i ncr eases given t o r epr esented empl oyees ear li er i n t he year as a mat t er of fai r ness. The Coal i t i on furt her ar gues t hat t he Ci t y i s r equi r ed t o separ at e pr ovisi onal empl oyees pr i or t o i mpl ementi ng a l ayoff of per manent empl oyees, and i t pr ovides a l i st of 44 empl oyees who ar e al l egedly ser ving pr ovisi onal ly i n t hei r titles. I n suppor t of i t s r equest, t he Coal i t i on submits a letter from Jack Potts, the for mer Di r ect or of Revenue and Fi nance wi t h t he Cit y. Pot t s agr ees t hat t he pr oposal t o i ncr ease t he Ci t y s contr i buti on t o r et i r ees heal t h i nsurance pr emi ums to 95% would yield a savings in 2010 and major savings in the fol l owi ng t hree year s. Pot t s al so opi nes t hat t he Ci t y s 2010 budget reflect s over expendi t ures without any substantiation or support, such as budgeting $3 million for terminal l eave payments. H e furt her agr ees t hat t he Ci t y has not abi ded by i t s hi r i ng freeze. The Coalition also submits numerous media accounts of the City s finances, hiring pr act i ces, and t he pr oposed l ayoff, contendi ng t hat t he news repor t s demonst r at e that the City is acting in bad faith. Finally, the Coalition requests a hearing in or der t hat i t can ful l y pr esent i nfor mat i on concer ni ng i t s pr oposed al t er nat i ves t o t he l ayoff. The GWU, whi ch r epr esents empl oyees i n t he t i t l es of Assi st ant Youth Oppor t uni t y Coor di nat or, Executi ve Di rect or, H uman Rel at i ons Commi ssi on, Super i ntendent of Recr eat i on, Di r ect or, Communi t y Devel opment Pr ogr am, Municipal Recycling Coordinator, Assistant Planning Director, and Public I nformation Officer, characterizes the City s layoff plan as a factually inaccurate and legally deficient proposal. It asser t s t hat t he Cit y mischar act er izes passing conver sat i ons as negot i at i on wi t h affect ed col l ect i ve negot i at ions r epr esentat i ves. Specifically, the GWU first contends that the layoff plan was untimely. In this regard, it notes that N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.4 provides that a layoff plan must be submitted
at l east 30 days pr i or t o t he i ssuance of layoff not i ces. H owever, t he GWU cl ai ms that the City issued layoff notices concurrent with the plan being filed with Civil Ser vice. The GWU al so asser t s t hat no pre-l ayoff act i ons or alt er nat i ves t o l ayoff wer e i mpl emented by t he Ci t y pr i or t o submi ssi on of t he l ayoff pl an. I t emphasi zes t hat t he Ci t y has i gnor ed i t s purpor t ed hi r i ng freeze. The GWU al so deni es t hat any of i t s r epr esentat i ves wer e pr esent at t he December 15, 2009 and March 9, 2010 meetings conducted by the City. The GWU further argues that the City has failed t o separ at e pr ovisi onal empl oyees or abi de by i t s hi r i ng freeze. Fi nal ly, t he GWU submi t s st at ements from t hree of t he t ar get ed empl oyees as evidence t hat i r r epar abl e har m wil l r esul t i f a st ay i s not gr anted. These empl oyees each det ail their personal financial circumstances and present the financial hardships they will face i f t hey l ose t hei r jobs. The PBA states that it is a disgrace that the City is getting away with a l evel of cor r upt i on t hat hasn t been exper i enced i n many year s. I t contends t hat t he Ci t y conti nues t o hi r e new empl oyees, despi t e t he pr esence of a hir i ng freeze, and i t emphasi zes t hat pr ovisi onal empl oyees ar e not bei ng affect ed by t he Ci t y s l ayoff pl an. The PBA al so asser t s t hat t he Ci t y never enter ed i nto good fai t h negotiations with it. It further maintains that a hearing is necessary prior to the Commi ssi on r ender i ng a deci si on i n t his mat t er i n or der t hat it can fully present the facts. Finally, the PBA submits additional newspaper articles and editorials related to the City s poor financial condition and hiring practices. I n r esponse, t he Ci t y, r epr esented by St even S. Gl i ckman, Esq., ar gues t hat i t fol l owed all pr ocedural r equi r ements set for t h i n Ci vil Ser vice l aw and r ul es when submitting its layoff plan. It relies on the information set forth in its layoff plan. In addition, the City argues that the unions are unable to demonstrate that they will suffer immediate or irreparable harm if a stay is not granted, since any harm suffer ed wi l l be financi al i n nat ure and can be r emedi ed by t he pr ovisi on of a monetary award if they are ultimately successful in challenging the layoff. Further, t he Cit y asserts that any delay in implementing the layoff will result in further budgetary issues and the submission of a substitute layoff plan that will target addi t i onal empl oyees i n or der t o r eal i ze mor e savings. I t i s al so not ed t hat, in a submissi on suppl ementing the layoff plan, the City r epor t ed t hat i t agai n met wi t h col l ect i ve negot i at i ons r epr esent at i ves on M ar ch 26, 2010, at which t i me a number of possi bl e alt er nat i ves t o l ayoff wer e di scussed. The City indicated that it specifically discussed the Coaliti on s pr oposal t o i ncr ease t he Ci t y s contr i buti on t o r et i r ees heal t h benefit s, and it was i n t he pr ocess of cal cul at i ng an accur at e est i mat e of savings t hat coul d be r eal i zed t hrough i mpl ementat i on of t his pl an. I n r epl y, t he Coal i t i on submi t s t hree job vacancy postings announced on April 8, 2010 for t he t i t l es of Seni or Cl er k, Super visi ng Contr act Admi ni st r at or, and
Seni or I nspect or, Road Openi ngs. I t quest i ons why t he Ci t y woul d conti nue t o fil l such positions if it is in such dire financial crises. I t al so addr esses t he cr i t er i a for i nter i m r eli ef set for t h i n N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.2. Specifically, the Coalition argues that appr oval of t he unfocused pr oposal woul d r esul t i n i mmediat e and i r r epar abl e har m t o t he Ci t y due t o t he decl i ne i n ser vices. I t al so contends t hat t her e woul d be no har m t o t he Ci t y if i t wer e r equi r ed t o submi t a focused pl an wi t h t he ki nd of cost savings we have suggest ed. The Coal i t i on al so asser t s t hat t he heal t h and safet y of t he Ci t y will be compr omi sed due t o a di mini shi ng wor kfor ce, and t hi s wi ll r esul t i n l ess visi t or s t o t he Ci t y. I n t urn, it cl ai ms t he Ci t y wil l have t o spend mor e t o at t r act visi t or s and gener at e r evenue. Fi nall y, t he Coal i t i on mai ntai ns t hat i t i s i n t he publ i c s i nter est t o sl ow down t he pr ocess and ensure that viable al t er nat ives t o t he l ayoff ar e ful l y consi der ed. CONCLUSION Initially, the unions request a hearing in this matter. Pet i t i ons for i nter i m r el i ef ar e t r eat ed as r eviews of t he wr i t t en r ecor d. See N.J.S.A. 11A:2-6(b). H ear i ngs ar e gr anted i n t hose l i mit ed i nst ances wher e t he Commi ssi on det er mi nes t hat a mat er ial and contr ol l i ng di spute of fact exist s whi ch can onl y be r esol ved through a hearing. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(d). No material issue of disputed fact has been pr esented whi ch would require a hearing. See Bel l evi l l e v. Depar t ment of Civi l Ser vi ce, 155 N.J. Super. 517 (App. Div. 1978). Further, it is emphasized that any empl oyee impact ed by t he M ay 28, 2010 l ayoff will have t he oppor t uni t y t o chal l enge t he good fait h of t he Ci t y s l ayoff, and t hey wi ll have t he oppor t uni t y for a ful l hear i ng on t he mer i t s of t hei r appeal s. 4 See N.J.A.C. 11A:8-4 and 4A:8-2.6. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.2(c) pr ovides t he fol l owi ng fact or s for consi der at i on i n evaluating petitions for interim relief: 1. Cl ear l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s by t he pet i t i oner ; 2. Danger of i mmediat e or i r r epar abl e har m; 3. Absence of subst anti al i njury t o ot her par t ies; and 4. The publ i c i nter est. N.J.S.A. 11A:8-4 and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.6(a)1 provide that good faith appeals may be fil ed based on a cl ai m t hat t he appoi nti ng author i t y l ai d off or demot ed t he empl oyee i n l i eu of l ayoff for r easons ot her t han economy, effici ency or ot her r el at ed r easons. Further, N.J.S.A. 11A:8-2(b), N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.2(e) and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3(c) pr ovide t hat appoi nt i ng author it i es shal l consul t wit h affect ed negot i at i ons r epr esentat i ves pr i or t o offer i ng al t er nat ives t o l ayoffs or i mpl ementi ng pr e-l ayoff measures. N.J.S.A. 11A:8-3 and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.2(b) and (c) pr ovide t hat 4 I t i s not ed t hat empl oyees have not yet r eceived a final det er minat i on of t hei r layoff r ight s; t hus, no appeals have been filed at this juncture.
appointing authorities should lessen the possibility of layoffs by considering vol untar y al t er nat ives, such as gr anti ng l eaves of absence wi t hout pay t o per manent empl oyees wi t hout l oss of seni or i t y, gr anti ng vol untar y furl oughs, allowing a vol untar y r educt i on of wor k hours, or pr ovidi ng empl oyees wit h opt i onal demot i onal t i t l e changes. N.J.S.A. 11A:8-2 and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3(a) provide that an appoi nti ng author i t y shal l l essen t he possi bi li t y, ext ent or impact of l ayoffs by implementing pre-layoff actions, such as initiating a temporary hiring and/or pr omot i on freeze, separ at i ng non-per manent empl oyees, r et urni ng pr ovisi onal empl oyees t o t hei r per manent t i t l es, r eassigni ng empl oyees, or assi st i ng pot enti all y affect ed empl oyees i n securi ng t r ansfer s or ot her empl oyment. At the outset, when a municipality has abolished a position, there is a pr esumpt i on of good fai t h and t he burden i s on t he empl oyee t o show bad fai t h and t hat t he act i on t aken was not for purposes of economy. Gr eco v. Smith, 40 N.J. Super. 182 (App. Div. 1956); Schnipper v. North Bergen Township, 13 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Di v. 1951). As t he Appel l at e Divisi on furt her obser ved, That t her e are consi der at i ons ot her t han economy i n t he aboli t i on of an office or posi t i on i s of no consequence, if, in fact, the office or position is unnecessary, and can be abolished without impairing departmental efficiency. Schnipper, supra at 15. (emphasis added). The quest i on i s not whet her t he pl an or act i on act ual l y achi eved i t s purpose of saving money, but whether the motive in adopting a plan or action was t o accompl i sh economi es or i nst ead t o r emove a publ i c empl oyee wi t hout fol l owing N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1 et seq. Thus, a good fait h l ayoff exist s i f t her e i s a l ogi cal or r easonabl e connect i on bet ween t he l ayoff deci si on and t he per sonnel act i on challenged by an employee. Additionally, it is within an appointing authority s di scr et i on t o deci de how t o achi eve i t s economi es. See Greco, supr a. In the instant matter, the unions challenge the pr oposed l ayoffs, contendi ng t hat t he Ci t y fail ed t o consi der a number of viabl e al t er nat i ves t o t he r educt i on i n for ce. For exampl e, t he Coal i t i on pr oposes t hat, i f t he Ci t y wer e t o agr ee t o an increase in its payment for health insurance payments for employees r et i r i ng on or after Sept ember 1, 2010, a signi ficant number of empl oyees woul d be enti ced t o r et i r e. I t asser t s t hat 12 Fi r e Depar t ment empl oyees, 28 Poli ce Depar t ment empl oyees, and 44 civili an empl oyees have expr essed i nter est i n such a pr ogr am, and i t est i mat es t hat t hese r et i r ements woul d r esul t i n $2.4 mil li on i n savings for t he Ci t y. I t has also suggest ed pr i vat izi ng Emer gency M anagement Ser vices, privatizing or consolidating the library with the County s library system, i mpl ementi ng r ecommendat i ons made by t he St at e Compt r ol l er fol l owi ng an audit of the City s finances, and converting to a private disability plan. Initially, the City i s i n t he pr ocess of col l ect i ng dat a t o cal culat e an accurat e est i mat e of t he savings that can realisticall y be achi eved wi t h t he Coal i t i on s pr oposal s, and i t conti nues t o consi der t hese opt i ons as a means t o aver t some l ayoffs. M or eover, as not ed above, i t i s wi t hi n t he Ci t y s di scr et i on t o deci de how t o achi eve i t s economi es. See Gr eco, supra. Even i f t he Coal i t i on wer e abl e t o per suasi vel y demonst r at e t hat adopt i on of
one or mor e of t hese al t er nat ives was feasi bl e and l i kely t o achi eve subst antial savings, it is still within the City s discretion to abolish redundant or unnecessary posi t i ons, so l ong as i t s mot i ve i s t o accompli sh economi es. The uni ons al so cr i t i ci ze t he Ci t y for hir i ng 26 new empl oyees si nce t he i mpl ementat i on of a hi r i ng freeze i n Apr i l 2009, and t hey ar gue t hat t he Ci t y i s r equi r ed t o separ at e pr ovisi onal empl oyees pr i or t o l aying off per manent empl oyees. As not ed above, N.J.S.A. 11A:8-2 and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3(a) contain suggesti ons for an appoi nti ng author i t y t o l essen t he possibi li t y, ext ent or i mpact of an i mpendi ng l ayoff. These suggest i ons i ncl ude i mpl ementi ng a hi r i ng freeze, separ at i ng nonper manent empl oyees, or r et urni ng pr ovisi onal empl oyees t o t heir per manent t i t l es. Ci vil Ser vice l aw and r egul at i ons do not require that t hese st eps be t aken pr i or t o implementing a layoff, particularly if the positions encumbered by new hires or pr ovisi onal empl oyees ar e essenti al t o effici ent gover nment. A r eview of t he ordinance instituting the hiring freeze reveals that the Administration and City Counci l r eser ved t he r i ght t o r eview t he necessi t y of fil l i ng vacant posi t i ons on a case-by-case basi s. I t al so per mi t t ed t he fil l i ng of vacant posi t i ons t hat wer e r equi r ed by law. The or di nance does not i mpose an absol ute freeze on al l hi r i ng, nor was i t r equi r ed t o. I ndeed, t he hi r i ng of new empl oyees duri ng t he pr ocess of a layoff is appropr i at e wher e i t i s necessar y t o conti nue t o pr ovide essenti al and vit al ser vices. Thus, t he hir i ng of empl oyees, i n and of i t sel f, i s not pr ohi bi t ed duri ng t he l ayoff pr ocess. The Coal i t i on and t he GWU have not demonst r at ed i n t he i nst ant matter that the posi t i ons fil l ed duri ng t he hi r i ng freeze wer e not necessar y t o t he conti nuat i on of vi t al ser vices t o Ci t y r esi dents and visi t or s. Furt her, i t cannot be i gnor ed t hat t he uni ons have not pr esented any evidence t o demonst r at e t hat any of t hese new hi r es ar e i n posi t i ons t hat wer e i mpact ed by t he l ayoff. See I n t he M at t er of City of Newark Layoff (Merit System Board, decided February 27, 2008). Si mil ar l y, t her e i s no r equi r ement t hat t he Ci t y separ at e pr ovisi onal empl oyees or r et urn t hem t o t hei r per manent t i t l es, par t i cular l y wher e, as her e, none of t he pr ovisi onal t i t l es ar e t ar get ed i n t he pr oposed l ayoff. L i ke a hi r i ng freeze, t he pr ovisi on i n N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3 regarding non-per manent empl oyees i s a suggest i on; i ndeed, i t i s one of many possi ble pr e-layoff actions that can be taken by an appoi nti ng author i t y t o l essen t he possi bil i t y, ext ent, or i mpact of a pr oposed l ayoff. H er e, t he uni ons have not demonst r at ed t hat t he separ at i on of pr ovisi onal empl oyees, or r et ur ni ng pr ovisi onal employees t o t hei r per manent t i t l es, would have a significant financial impact. They also have failed to articulate what impact t he t er mi nat i on of t he ser vices of pr ovisi onal empl oyees woul d have on t he Cit y s ser vices. Additionally, the GWU and the PBA assert that the City failed to participate in any negotiations with the unions prior to submitting the layoff plan. Initially, it must be not ed t hat Ci vil Ser vice l aw and r ul es do not r equi r e negoti ati ons with affect ed bar gai ni ng uni t s pr i or t o i mpl ementi ng a layoff. Rat her, N.J.S.A. 11A:8-
2(b), N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.2(e) and N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.3(c) require consultations with affect ed uni ons. The l evel of consul t at i on contempl at ed by Civil Ser vi ce l aw and r ul es gover ni ng l ayoffs does not r equi r e negot i at i ons wi t h affect ed col l ect i ve bargaining units as that term is used in labor relations law. Rather, Civil Service law and rules contemplate that a meaningful discussion will occur between an appoi nti ng author i t y and affect ed negot i at i ons r epr esentat i ves wi t h a view t owar d avoi di ng a r educt i on i n for ce al t oget her or l esseni ng t he i mpact of a pr oposed l ayoff on per manent empl oyees and t he pr ovisi on of publ i c ser vices. See e.g., I n t he M at t er of T empor ar y L ayoffs, J er sey Cit y (CSC, decided November 18, 2009). The GWU claims that i t s r epr esentat i ve was not pr esent at t wo of t he t hree meet i ngs hel d wi t h coll ect i ve negot iat i ons r epr esentat i ves. H owever, i t does not di spute t hat i t met wi t h ci t y official s on M ar ch 1, 2010, when i t r ecei ved not i ficat i on of t he pr oposed l ayoff and was i nvit ed t o pr esent al t er nat i ves. Furt her, a r eview of t he l ayoff pl an demonst r at es t hat t he Ci t y di d not al l ege t hat a GWU r epr esentat i ve was pr esent at t he December 2009 meet i ng; t hi s meet i ng onl y invol ved pol i ce uni on r epr esentat i ves. I n any event, t he GWU fai l s t o pr esent any al t er nat ives i n t he instant matter, and it does not claim that it supplied any proposals to the City. The Ci t y cannot be fault ed for fai l i ng t o consi der al l eged al t er nat i ves whi ch wer e never pr esented t o i t. The Commi ssi on finds no evidence t o suppor t t he cl ai ms t hat t he Ci t y di d not adequat el y consul t wi t h t he affect ed uni ons, as contempl at ed by Ci vil Ser vice l aw and r ul es, pr i or t o pr oposi ng a layoff. The GWU also submits that the March 12, 2010 layoff plan was untimely. I t asser t s t hat N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.4 provides that a layoff plan must be submitted at least 30 days pr i or t o t he i ssuance of l ayoff not i ces. The GWU cl aims t hat empl oyees r ecei ved l ayoff not i ces on t he dat e t he plan was submit t ed t o SL O. Ther e i s no documentat i on i n t he r ecor d t o suppor t t hi s cl ai m. M or eover, t he r ecor d contai ns evidence t hat empl oyees wer e ser ved wi t h I ndi vidual N ot i ces of L ayoff on Apr i l 12, 2010, t he dat e on which SL O appr oved t he l ayoff pl an. Even assumi ng, arguendo, t hat empl oyees r ecei ved some for m of not i ce pr i or t o t he dat e t he pl an was appr oved, such not i ce woul d onl y have ser ved as addi t i onal advance not i ce t o empl oyees t hat a r educt i on i n for ce was contempl at ed and under r eview by SL O. Such addi t i onal not i ce does not r ender t he l ayoff plan untimely. The Coalition further questions the fiscal soundness of awarding a 4% salary i ncr ease t o non-r epr esented empl oyees i n December 2009. I t asser t s t hat t he Ci t y coul d have opt ed t o wi t hhol d t hi s i ncr ease t o achi eve addi t i onal savings and l essen t he possi bi l i t y of l ayoffs. Al t hough t he Ci t y was not obl igat ed t o gr ant sal ar y i ncr eases t o non-r epr esented empl oyees, t he r ecor d r eflect s t hat i t di d so as a mat t er of fai r ness, si nce uni oni zed empl oyees had r ecei ved a si mil ar i ncr ease ear l i er i n 2009. Cer t ai nl y, had none of t hese empl oyees, r epr esented or not, r ecei ved sal ar y i ncr eases, t he Ci t y coul d have r eali zed some savings. H owever, gi ven t hat i t was contr act ual l y obli gat ed t o gr ant r ai ses t o r epr esented empl oyees, t he Commi ssi on does not find t hat pr ovidi ng si mil ar wage i ncr eases t o such a small
number of unr epr esented empl oyees was a demonst r at i on of bad fai t h. The Coal i t i on does not pr ovide any i nfor mat i on concer ni ng t he amount of savings t hat coul d have been r eal i zed i f t hese 17 empl oyees wer e not gr anted a 4% wage i ncr ease. Fi nal l y, t he Coal i t i on r el i es on a l i st of 10 empl oyees as pr oof t hat t he Ci t y was t ar get i ng empl oyees who di d not pol i t i cal l y suppor t M ayor L angfor d. H owever, t her e i s absol utely no i nfor mat i on i n t he r ecor d r egarding who authored this list and what t he purpose of t he li st was. This document mer el y contai ns a li st of t he names and t it l es of 10 empl oyees [a]s per t he M ayor. I t does not st at e t hat t he M ayor wi shed t o l ay off t hese empl oyees. I n addi t i on, t her e i s no evi dence i n t he record to support the claim that these individuals were not politically aligned with t he M ayor. Absent any authenti cat i on, t hi s document does not demonst r at e any impermissible political motivation. Based on t he above, i t i s cl ear that the unions in this matter have not demonst r at ed a cl ear l i keli hood of success on t he mer i t s of any future appeal r el at i ve t o t he M ay 28, 2010 l ayoff. Ot her t han t he pr esentat i on of t he l i st di scussed above and t hei r gener al st at ements t hat t he layoff is politically mot i vat ed, t he uni ons have not del i neat ed any speci fic basi s or pr esented any r el i abl e evidence t hat t he l ayoff i s bei ng i mpl emented i n bad fai t h. The uni ons have not demonst r at ed t hat t he Ci t y fai l ed t o adequat el y consi der any feasi bl e al t er nat ives t hat t he uni ons have pr oposed. I n t hi s r egar d, t he mer e fact t hat t he Ci t y di d not adopt pr oposed al t er nat i ves i s not evidence t hat t he pr oposal s wer e not consi der ed. Furt her, t he Ci t y has i ndi cat ed i t s wi l l i ngness t o consi der t o expl or e alt er nat ive r evenue sources and savings measures unti l t he effect i ve dat e of t he l ayoff, and t he Commi ssi on encourages t he par t i es t o conti nue di scussi ng possi bl e al t er nat ives. M or eover, t he uni ons have not shown t hat t her e i s a danger of i mmedi at e or irreparable harm if this request is not granted. I nitially, any harm suffered by affect ed empl oyees i s financi al i n nat ure, and as such, can be r emedi ed by t he granting of back pay should they later prevail in an appeal challenging the good fai t h of t he l ayoff. Additionally, the Coalition posits that the City will suffer i r r epar abl e har m i f t he l ayoffs ar e effect uat ed, si nce t he Ci t y wi ll suffer a decl i ne i n ser vices, affect i ng bot h r esi dents and visi t or s. H owever, t he Coal i t i on has not pr esented any evidence to substantiate this claim. In this regard, the Commission not es t hat 11 of t he 64 t ar get ed posi t ions ar e ci vil ian, admi ni st r at ive t i t l es, including Assistant Youth Opportunity Coordinator, Assistant Business Administrator, and Assistant Planning Director. The Coali t i on has not shown how t he el i mi nat i on of t hese few t i t l es woul d have a del et er i ous effect on t he Ci t y s ser vices. The r emai ni ng t ar get ed posi t i ons r esi de i n t he Pol i ce and Fi r e Depar t ments. The Coal i t i on has not suppl i ed any dat a t o suppor t its claims that
t he l oss of t hese per sonnel woul d sever el y and negat i vely i mpact publ i c safet y i n t he Ci t y. Thus, no i mmedi at e or i r r epar abl e har m has been demonst r at ed. The par t i es al so asser t t hat t her e i s no danger of har m or i njury t o t he Ci t y i f it i s r equi r ed t o sl ow down t he pr ocess t o ensur e t hat viabl e al t er nat i ves ar e consi der ed. I t i s under scor ed t hat t he Ci t y conti nues t o consi der t he al t er nat i ves pr esented by t he Coal i t i on, and i t has indi cat ed i t s wi l li ngness t o conti nue t o consi der al t er nat i ve sources of r evenue and savings unti l t he effect i ve dat e of t he l ayoff. To gr ant a st ay under t hese ci r cumst ances may pr ove t o be i njuri ous t o al l par t i es. I f a st ay i s gr anted and no feasi bl e al t er nat i ves ar e found, t he Ci t y may have t o l ay off addi t i onal empl oyees or i nst i t ute ot her pai nful cost saving measures t o offset t he expense t i ed t o del aying t he l ayoff. Furt her, t he publ i c woul d be har med, si nce i t i s t he t axpayer s who would ul t i mat el y be r equir ed t o shoul der t he additional financial burden of mai ntai ni ng t he empl oyees on t he payr ol l. Accor di ngl y, t he uni ons r equest for a st ay of t he l ayoffs i s deni ed. N ever t hel ess, t he Commi ssi on r ecommends t hat t he par t i es conti nue t o engage i n di scussi ons r egar di ng possi bl e al t er nat i ves t o t he pr oposed l ayoffs. ORDER Ther efor e, i t i s or der ed t hat t hese pet i t i ons be deni ed.