Comments on: New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Local 196

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:12:15 +0000

One distinction between the rule of decision MF proposes and the facts is that the tollbooth collector was still wearing his uniform.

Out of uniform, a union rule prohibiting the firing for such behavior bothers me less if and only if the tollbooth collector’s behavior is inadmissible evidence in a suit against the highway authority by a plaintiff injured by the tollbooth collector.

By: MF

MF — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:23:29 +0000

In this instance, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with the union. An employee should not be fired for his off-duty actions. If he had represented himself as an employee at the time of his actions, of course he should be fired. But just because someone does something against the law while on his own time, that doesn’t necessarily justify him being fired from his job. I’m sure there is no clause in his employment agreement that says no arrests of any kind. Wait, he wasn’t even charged with any crime, was he?

What am I missing?

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:51:57 +0000

Bad news for you, Bill, they tried that.

The courts held and the prosecutor agreed that the offense didn’t involve his employment sufficiently for a conviction to justify dismissal.

That’s kind of a flabbergasting holding in itself.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:16:39 +0000

I agree with Ted, both in his criticism of the arbitrator and support for judicial restraint.

In addition to the fact that we don’t want courts reviewing arbitration decisions de novo, we should also applaud the court for refusing to expand public policy based on “amorphous considerations of the common weal.”

(That being said, it’s hard to think of a better example of outcome-based jurisprudence, because the New Jersey Supreme Court is about as reluctant to announce new doctrines of “public policy” as the New York Yankees are to spend money.)

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:34:59 +0000

I would think that there would be a an alternative route to firing this idiot. Firing paintfalls at vehicles on the highway is presumably a criminal offense, perhaps reckless endangerment. His employer would presumably be on firmer ground firing him as a result of a criminal conviction.