|
The Conscientious Employee Protection Act, more
commonly known as the “Whistleblower Act”, has caused
many problems for municipalities, creating litigation,
legal expenses, and expenditures for damages. As an
“adjunct” to this statute, on July 26, 2006, Governor
Jon Corzine signed the New Jersey Worker Freedom from
Employer Intimidation Act. The most significant
provision of this Act holds that:
“No employer or employer’s agent, representative or
designee may, except as provided in Section 3a of this
act, require its employees to attend an
employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any
communications with the employer or its agents or
representatives, the purpose of which is to
communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or
political matters.”
The Act defines “Political Matters” to: “include
political party affiliation decisions to join or not
join or participate in any lawful, political, social
or community organization or activity.”
To protect against “retaliation”, the Act
further provides:
“No employer or employer’s agent, representative or
designee shall discharge, discipline or other penalize
or threaten to discharge discipline or otherwise
penalize any employee because the employee or a person
acting on behalf of the employee, makes a good faith
report, verbally or in writing, of a violation or
suspected violation of this act.”
Significantly, “labor organizations” initially were
included in this definition, but were deleted from the
final version of the Act. Therefore, municipalities,
their elected officials, and/or administration may
communicate their opinions about labor organizations
without violating the Act.
In the political environment within which
municipalities operate, depending upon how the courts
interpret this broad and vague language, this Act can
have significant repercussions. Contributing to a
political fund, attending a political speech by a
candidate, fund raising and community events such as
walk-a-thons are encompassed within this definition.
Municipalities, their elected officials, and/or
administration can be accused and perceived to violate
this Act simply by the municipality, its elected
officials, and/or administration announcing and/or
supporting certain fund raising and/or community
events. An employee can allege that by the
municipality, its elected officials, and/or
administration announcing or supporting a fund raising
or community event, the employee is being coerced into
participating and/or contributing to that function in
order to remain on the “good side” of those in
charge.
The Act does provide an “out” for
municipalities, their elected officials, and/or
administration. The Act provides:
“This act shall not be construed as prohibiting an
employer from permitting its employees to voluntary
attend employer-sponsored meetings or providing other
communications to the employees, if the employer
notifies the employee that they may refuse to attend
the meeting without penalty.”
Therefore, so long as a municipality, its elected
officials and/or administration notifies its employees
that participation is strictly voluntary and lack of
participating will not lead to any penalties, the
municipality, its elected officials, and
administration should be safe. To achieve this
position, municipalities should distribute a policy
outlining this Act and the employee’s rights pursuant
thereto. For assistance and/or further information,
please contact us at your convenience:
Steven S. Glickman
NJCM Labor Counsel
675 Morris Avenue, Suite 100
Springfield, NJ 07081
973-467-5111
SGLICKMAN@RGLABORLAW.COM |
