PBA LOCAL 109 HUDSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 30 S. Hackensack Avenue Kearny, NJ

Transcription

1 PBA LOCAL 109 HUDSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 30 S. Hackensack Avenue Kearny, NJ May 17, 2016 Members: First allow me to announce that last week we received a long awaited decision from Civil Service regarding our complaint about JDO s being permitted to work in the jail and to perform jobs that belong to certified county correction officers. If you recall, we asked for a Desk Audit to be performed by Civil Service and I m happy to report that the decision was in our favor and that Civil Service basically ruled the way we hoped they would rule. The decision basically justifies our concerns that our jobs were being filled through politically appointed individuals who supposedly hold highly questionable non-sworn civilian job titles. There are many more legal and administrative technicalities involved in the way in which Hudson County was circumventing Civil Service law, rules and regulations in regard to the former JDO s who were supposedly laid off, but our only concern was how they were being permitted to mirror the duties of a county correction officer. Before I get to the particulars of this decision, I believe that its true impact and importance won t be fully realized unless we review our past few years as a reminder of what was at stake had we not taken this action to protect our jobs. I also believe that the impact of this case if it legally holds up actually protects correction officer jobs statewide, which I will explain. Over the past few years our jail was identified as a destination to hold other county inmates from jails that their administrations had claimed they wanted to close. First it was Union County and then it was Mercer County who was seeking to enter into a possible Shared Service Agreement with another county. This was the first time this issue hit us close to home, but one jail in Gloucester County did in fact close a few years back so the issue is real and unfortunately the closing of a county jail is fully supported by law if need be. Obviously there is no law that says that a county must maintain a jail. We used to think for many years that our jobs as county correction officers were untouchable, but what we are learning is that they are not within these issues where a county wishes to close their jail and farm out the inmates to another county. (Shared Service Agreement)

2 Furthermore, the closures of these jails, according to publicized reports and state law, would possibly mean that the officers assigned to those closed jails would either be laid off or transferred into other jails. However, keep in mind that what we learned in the process might have meant that displaced officers in other counties, may have, according to law, been allowed to take jobs in Hudson County and this of course caused a whirlwind of rumors and concerns. Within a shared service agreement, there is something known as an employee reconciliation plan which is basically where the employees of the agency giving up the service, go to the agency who will be performing the service. It s not an automatic occurrence and would have to be made part of the agreement between agencies, but the threat was there. Luckily for all involved PBA Locals, the closures never happened and all statewide county correction officers are fully employed in their own jails other than what took place in Gloucester County. I m reviewing all this mostly as a reminder of what can happen if we don t aggressively protect our actual jobs and also protect the relevance and importance of maintaining the integrity of our actual job titles, the lawful duties that go with our particular job titles and our standards of employment under State Public Employment Law. (Civil Service) This JDO issue first became a problem nearly 3 years ago when our county began to rumble about an agreement with Union County for Union County to house our juvenile offenders and with that, the Hudson County Youth House was eventually closed and all Hudson County JDO s were to be laid off, or so we thought. I was approached by then Director Aviles, who informed me that the former JDO s were going to be transferred to the county jail and that he was going to utilize them and place them in civilian titles and in non-officer assignments. This of course would have required the approval of Civil Service to both approve the layoff and then approve the reclassification of job tiles from County JDO to other appropriate titles. {{What actually occurred as opposed to what I was told, was that these former JDO s showed up in our jail ready to work in full officer uniforms that identified them as JDO s, signed jail operational paperwork as officers, were assigned to officers posts within the jail, and we later found out still held their Civil Service titles of Juvenile Detention Officers.}} Regardless, the county actually provided us with jail personnel documents showing that several supposedly former JDO s were rehired into several different civilian titles within the jail such as Records & Admissions Officer, Security Systems Operator, Communication Operator, etc. and supervisory positions within those titles. Again, the technicalities in the supposed layoff and supposed reclassification into civilian titles would not have been our issue even though we are now learning that things were not done legally, but it became our issue when the county claimed that the duties within these civilian

3 titles allowed these supposedly former JDO s to work in certain jail areas that require a correction officer be assigned. Therefore, after consulting with our legal advisers, we sought the intervention of Civil Service to determine as to whether or not the county was allowed by law to replace correction officers with civilians in certain positions where our former Director Aviles claimed that correction officers were not necessary and that he had the authority to use these civilians as he saw fit. The PBA appealed to the former director in writing and in personal meetings that we had an issue with these assignments and we also met face to face along with our attorneys and county attorneys in hopes to avoid a legal battle, but the former Director remained adamant that he was allowed to mix and match our jobs at the jail and place a civilian into a jail position as he saw fit and in that meeting, he said, All Jails Do It when in all actuality, no other jails do it. Therefore, after seeing that there was no other choice and that the former director remained adamant, we filed the complaint with Civil Service. I mentioned earlier that the impact of this case had statewide importance within corrections, because prior to our complaint, other union officials in other counties began to hear from their Wardens that the use of civilians in a jail may become a reality because Hudson County Was Doing It This information was coming from the NJ Jail Wardens Association, which at the time was Chaired by former Director Aviles, who seemed bent on believing that he can ignore Civil Service and rewrite the state rules and regulations on jail staffing, job titles, and how the duties of certain job titles can be redefined and reinterpreted to fit his own agenda. The bottom line to why this issue began is because our jail was then and still is in dire need of new, properly hired, properly trained and properly certified county correction officers, from a legitimate Civil Service Employment Eligibility List for the title of County Correction Officer. However, the former Director thought he had a cheaper alternative and unfortunately it seems that county officials allowed the former director to employ his ill-conceived plan and now we have been made aware that county counsel is obviously not happy with the way things turned out. The Civil Service decision states several things. One being that they are aware that the supposedly laid off JDO s still hold that title and were never properly reclassified into the civilian titles that the county claims they now hold. The Civil Service decision also states that they are ordering the county to remove the former JDO s from jail posts that require a correction officer within 30 days. This was a huge win for our local and as I stated earlier, for all correction officers statewide, because had this decision went the other way, we would need to be concerned that a domino

4 effect would occur where all jail administrators would seek a cheaper civilian-based alternative in their jail staffing plans. My immediate concern at this time is that as soon as rumors got out in the jail that the JDO s may be removed, some officers became more concerned with our ongoing staffing shortage and ongoing issue with mandatory overtime which admittedly may become worse before it gets better, but what choice did we have? Were we supposed to accept that our jobs were being traded off to civilians through political appointments rather than through the legitimate employment process for county correction officers? Were we supposed to allow our county to set a new jail staffing standard that basically shows that correction officers are no longer needed and can be replaced with civilian personnel at the whim of jail management? When rumors hit our jail a while back that officers from other jails may be transferred into our jail, taking our jobs through a proposed shared service agreement and employee reconciliation program as mentioned earlier, the place went crazy, so were we supposed to allow laid off JDO s to just take our jobs without a challenge? This is what I was referring to when I spoke of the importance of defending the integrity of our jobs and our actual job titles, because what caused this issue was taking the description of our job titles, comparing that to the description of civilian job titles and then seeking a way to intermingle the two. The State PBA lobbied hard for us many years ago to legitimize and professionalize the corrections profession and to incorporate the correction officer title into the law enforcement family and I m sure we all would agree, that we don t want to see the correction profession go backwards. Nor should we allow a jail administrator to set the perception that we are not fully needed and not fully necessary in the running of a correctional institution or that we can be replaced with politically appointed individuals. I m assuming that the county will seek a way to avoid the order written by Civil Service. The county already wrote to Civil Service asking for an extension on the 30 day deadline for which I assume will be used to find a way to avoid the order so there may be legal work ahead of us as we continue to defend our position and to have the order enforced. Regardless, it was a win and a very proud moment for Local 109 and I would hope that our members fully support our efforts to protect our jobs now and well into the future as we wait for the fallout from this decision. We simply expect that when a staffing need at the jail presents itself, which operationally requires or for safety and security concerns require that a correction officer be assigned, that the

5 jail/county administration will do so and that no employees holding civilian based job titles are permitted to act as correction officers. Our position needs to be and I m sure we would all agree that the statewide standards throughout the correctional system is that the care, custody, observation and control of inmates within their housing units, while moving throughout the facility, outside the facility, as well as the physical security of the jail itself, inside and out and especially within the custodial parts of the jail, belong to properly employed, trained and state certified correction officers. Thank you for your time and support. Respectfully, Alexander Rosario lll Alexander Rosario III, President PBA Local 109 CC. State PBA & State Corrections Committee