Lack of Negotiations at Fault in Furlough Mishap

The township’s ill-fated 2010 furlough plan continues to face scrutiny by the public after several residents noted at a committee meeting that the township did not properly negotiate with the affected employee unions.

In December, the township approved an emergency appropriation of $218,250 to pay back local unions for wages lost after an arbitrator found the township violated union contracts when it imposed 22 furlough days on township employees, with the exception of police. Employees had taken a 20 percent cut in salaries by not working Fridays from July 26, 2010, to the end of the year, which initially saved the township $450,000.

The unions contested the move was a violation of contracts and should have been negotiated, said Teamsters attorney Kevin P. McGovern of the firm Mets, Shiro & McGovern, who represented Local 97 in the matter. The Teamsters union won an arbitration judgment against the township while the other main employee union involved, the Communications Workers of America Local 1088, reached a settlement with the township.

“I find that the Township did violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement by reducing employee hours and pay for the calendar year 2010,” arbitrator Tom Hartigan of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission wrote in a report.

Discussions merely 'informational'

Resident Pat Doyle, an attorney, recently told the governing body that it should have done more "due diligence" before forging ahead with the furlough plan.

“You did have a good-faith furlough plan. Veronica (Laureigh, township administrator) submitted a plan that crossed every T and dotted every I… I  felt there could have been more due diligence.”

Hartigan said a meeting the township had with the affected unions on April 30, 2010, was an "informational session," not a negotiating meeting, as the township viewed them. 

“Indeed, the Union’s response on the request for cost savings was a suggestion of five furlough days which Ms. Laureigh testified was rejected as too little savings,” Hartigan said in the report. “No further discussion, offers, or proposals were forthcoming.”

One employee union did however offer a concession that would have saved the township money over time.

During the summer of 2010, the Teamsters union offered to suspend longevity payments, representing $250,000 in savings over the course of two-and-a-half years. But the givebacks would have provided relief for future budgets rather than closing the budget gap at that time, Laureigh said.

Doyle noted that the township had its plan evaluated by the Civil Service Commission, a necessary step but one that doesn't satisfy a need for negotiations between the parties.

“Your furlough plan approval of that is not approval of fair negotiations and that’s where the actions that were taken fell short,” she said. “That whoever conducted the negotiation process did not fairly negotiate. There was no agreement at all between the parties.”

The Civil Service Commission solely evaluates the furlough plan to see if it fulfills statutory requirements and that the township is able to justify it, spokesperson Peter Lyden said. But the commission does not have any role in negotiations.

“That is internal,” he said. “That is not something we’re involved in. We ensure that proper notice is given to employees and bumping rights are preserved but we don’t look at what’s going on with negotiations.”

Different Methods Needed 'Moving Forward'

Some have blamed the township’s labor counsel for the situation. Resident Gary Vaccaro said the counsel should be more aware of the Collective Bargaining Agreement while committee members Sean Sharkey and Helen DelaCruz voted against the re-appointment of Cittta, Holzapfel & Zabarsky for labor counsel this year.

Township Administrator Laureigh explained that labor counsel represents the interests of the township and makes sure the township abides by the rules and regulations of labor laws.

"We were under the impression from legal counsel that we were operating correctly," Mayor Mark Dykoff said. "As it turned out, we weren't."

But discussions occurred without labor counsel present, said a representative from the firm who wished to remain anonymous. The firm was not utilized until an unfair practice action was filed against the township.

The idea of furloughs in 2010 was “a whole new world,” said Committeeman Gary Quinn, who was mayor at the time of implementation.

“We were getting a lot of direction from the state, a lot of direction from the governor, a lot of direction from civil service. You can do it, you can do it, you can do it,” he said. “At that point in time we had to close the budget gap. Was it the right thing to do in hindsight? Apparently not.”

The former mayor expressed doubt that an employee union would voluntarily negotiate the type of furloughs tried in 2010.

“Do you believe there’s a union that would agree to taking 22 days off and a cut in salary?” Quinn said. “It’s not going to happen… We know moving forward, we have to have different avenues of closing budget gaps.”

The township's furlough plan and PERC's decision is attached to the article as a PDF.