Legal Opinion · Dissent

Borough of East Rutherford v. East Rutherford PBA Local 275

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 19, 2013Published

1DissentJustice Patterson

The majority affirms the Appellate Division panel’s judgment upholding the arbitration award as a “reasonably debatable” construction of the parties’ collectively bargained agreement (CBA). Ante at 193-94, 61 A.3d at 943-44. It endorses the arbitrator’s mandate that the $5.00 increase in employee co-payment per doctor visit for participants in the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP), required by N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.29(0, should be paid by the Borough of East Rutherford (Borough), not by the covered employees as the statute envisions. See ante at 206-08, 61 A.3d at 951-52. Because the CBA…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of ManalapanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. Estate of Hanges v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
  3. Communications Workers of America, Local 1087 v. Monmouth County Board of Social ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  4. County College of Morris Staff Ass'n v. County College of MorrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  5. Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API