 |
555 U.S. Highway One South Suite 240 Iselin, NJ 08830 Phone: 732.636.0040 |
|||||||||
|
WELCOME to the Law Firm of Mets Schiro & McGovern, LLP |
|||||||||
Firm News — Case Decisions New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Local 196, I.F.P.T.E. Statement by Len Schiro, Attorney for Jason Glassey, Regarding Today’s Supreme Court Decision In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today affirmed the vitality of the labor arbitration process and its central role in maintaining labor management peace. In IFPTE Local 196 v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Chief Justice Zazzali writing for a unanimous Court held that an arbitrator’s award reinstating a worker to employment could not be overturned merely because of the employer’s belief that the actions of the employee violated public policy. The Court decided that it is the substance of the arbitrator’s award rather than the underlying conduct of the employee that must comport with public policy. “I applaud the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to rule in favor of IFPTE Local 196, it is a victory for both the Union and the Labor Arbitration process.” said Leonard Schiro the attorney representing the union in this case. Mr. Schiro of the firm Mets Schiro & McGovern, LLP in Woodbridge, New Jersey noted that the ruling clarified state law by limiting the circumstances under which a binding arbitration award could be vacated on public policy grounds. “Arbitration,” said Mr. Schiro, “is supposed to be a way to avoid litigation. Both the unions and management agree to submit their disputes to an arbitrator for a final and binding decision. That is why it is so important for the Court to respect the findings of an arbitrator and to show restraint when asked to review these awards. And that’s what the Court did today.” The case began when Jason Glassey, a toll collector with the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, was terminated following off duty use of a paint ball gun against a motorist on the Garden State Parkway. The Arbitrator reinstated Glassey to employment but imposed an eleven month suspension without pay and required Glassey to submit to fitness for duty evaluations to ensure that he was not a danger to himself or others. In its argument to the Supreme Court the Authority alleged that Glassey’s actions standing alone warranted discharge without regard to the arbitrator’s view of the salient facts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument finding instead that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement and the penalty imposed upon Mr. Glassey were consistent with applicable law. Neither Justice LaVecchia nor Justice Albin participated in the decision. Posted — 04.2007 |
|
||||||||||
Contact us about your legal matter today! |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||