Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Saginario v. Attorney General

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 8, 1981Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClifford, J.

I join fully in Part I of the Court’s opinion and in the affirmance of the Appellate Division judgment reached in Part II. I suggest, however, that the scope of the Court’s remedy— resubmission of the matter to arbitration with notice to and full participation by plaintiff — is contrary to the applicable provisions of the Employer-Employee Relations Act and the mechanics of the grievance procedure established by the collective negotiation agreement. More important, I believe that the wrong route has been taken to achieve that remedy. Rather than warp the provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  4. Humphrey v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Kearny PBA Local 21 v. Town of KearnySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979

12 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