Borough of East Rutherford v. East Rutherford PBA Local 275
Supreme Court of New Jersey
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
- Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of ManalapanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- Estate of Hanges v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
- Communications Workers of America, Local 1087 v. Monmouth County Board of Social ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- County College of Morris Staff Ass'n v. County College of MorrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.