Court Opinion

ID: 9752530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:13:40.646114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.265194
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in accord with that portion of the majority opinion holding that unilateral implementation of the safety-incentive program violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(l) and (5). I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion that the record in this case supports PERC’s conclusion that the County had not presented a legitimate business reason for terminating the program. On this issue, I find most persuasive the initial determination of the Hearing Examiner who, although subsequently reversed by PERC, found that it “strains credulity” to conclude that the County’s termination of the program was attributable to anti-union animus:
[T]he Hearing Examiner has considered as probative the testimony of Kaufman as to what transpired at the exploratory conference on October 28th. However, the Hearing Examiner has concluded that even if the testimony of Kaufman is taken at face value, CWA has failed to establish the occurrence of any subsequent events which might causally connect the demands or requests made by Kaufman on October 28th to the County’s decision to terminate the Program on November 12, 1985, “effective immediately.” As previously found, the Hearing Examiner is not persuaded that the County at any time manifested any anti-union animus towards CWA in the course of the establishment and continuance of the Program and, thus, not only is there no violation of the § 5.4(a)(3) of the Act involved but there has been no violation by the County of § 5.4(a)(4) of the Act. It strains credulity to reach a contrary conclusion given the stipulated facts and the testimony of Kaufman.
Despite contrary findings by the Hearing Examiner after PERC’s initial decision and remand, I am unpersuaded that the evidence in the record establishes anything more than a reasonable governmental decision by the Board of Freeholders to terminate an incentive program that the union opposed, not to retaliate for their opposition, but to avoid a costly and pro*340longed controversy over a relatively unimportant awards program. I am persuaded that the Hearing Examiner had this right the first time, when he granted the County’s motion to dismiss the charges relating to termination of the awards program.
STEIN and GARIBALDI, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For affirmance — Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN — 4.