BY LAUREN MATTHEW
Staff Writer
OLD BRIDGE – Paid health benefits for certain township retirees will change as a result of an ordinance approved Monday by the Township Council.
Due to a court ruling in Fair Lawn, Bergen County, the state now mandates that benefits for municipal retirees be equal.
“We’re not doing this simply because we want to expand benefits,” said Council President Patrick Gillespie. “We’re doing this because there is an appellate court case decision that tells us that we have to do this.”
Gillespie said that because of the court decision, the township can no longer pick and choose who gets what benefits. Coverage must be uniform for all retired employees.
At its April 10 meeting, the council asked questions of labor attorney Matt Giacobbe regarding the state’s decision and what Old Bridge must do to comply.
Giacobbe said that over the years, the township has provided benefits to retirees, but its ordinance is now in contradiction with state law.
“Right now, the way your law is written, if a police officer gets shot in the line of duty, he gets accidental disability retirement. … He gets no health benefits,” Giacobbe said.
But under state law, that officer would be entitled to those benefits.
“The problem you have is if you don’t act on it, your ordinance … does not comport with state law,” Giacobbe told the council. “I don’t want you to get sued.”
“What we’re trying to do is make the ground rules uniform so that all employees know what their rights are,” he continued. That uniformity, he said, is necessary because benefits are provided by a private carrier and not the state health benefits plan. He said Old Bridge is not the only town dealing with this issue.
Though some council members argued that benefits could be taken from some retirees to level the playing field, Giacobbe said benefits cannot be taken from people who have already retired.
Ward 4 Councilman G. Kevin Calogera noted that the police department currently has different benefits for retirees and employees because of the nature of an officer’s job.
“You’re absolutely right,” Giacobbe told him. “Contracts can vary. Rates can vary. Pays can vary. … Only in the area of retiree health benefits has the Legislature spoken.”
Calogera noted that police are subject to age requirements; all officers are hired by the age of 35. As such, he said, there is no need for some of the clauses in the ordinance for retiree benefits because no police officer will be subject to them.
“I don’t see any way that police officers can use that clause of 15 years [of service] at [age] 62,” he said.
But, Giacobbe said, an already sworn officer could be hired by the township at a later age.
“You, as the governing body, have the right to make the determination [as to] what you think would be most beneficial,” he said.
Also, he noted, disability retirement must be provided under the law to all who have put in 25 years of service.
Ward 1 Councilman Robert Volkert asked Giacobbe what would happen if the ordinance amendment was approved.
“[Right now] you have different choices for different classes of people,” Giacobbe explained. “No one’s challenging that. The law … just deals with uniformity for retiree benefits, not uniformity among [current employees].”
If benefits are different among current employees, he said, the problem lies with employee unions, not the township.
“The problem with retirees is once you’re a retiree, you’re no longer a member of a collective bargain agreement,” Giacobbe said.
The state law, he said, is meant to protect retirees who are leaving or have already retired.
“If you look at different bargaining units, I’m sure there’s a mishmash of what they’re all getting,” Ward 5 Councilman Richard Greene said.
Giacobbe said the real issue is who pays the insurance premium for retirees. If they have no benefits, he said, they must pay it themselves.
Volkert also asked if benefits would have to be provided retroactively once changes to the ordinance were made.
“In your passage of this ordinance, we’re not saying that we’re paying the medical bills of people who in the past didn’t qualify,” Giacobbe said. “I don’t foresee that being a problem whatsoever. … It’s relatively limited to the area of disability retirement.”
The safest course of action for the township, he said, was to amend the ordinance.
“I think the taxpayers would view this as a responsible action on our part,” Gillespie said.
The council approved the amendment with five affirmative votes. Calogera and Volkert voted against it, while Greene and Ward 6 Councilwoman Lucille Panos abstained.