IN THE MATTER OF CINDY NORCROSS, WINSLOW TOWNSHIP, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY(NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0807-15T3
IN THE MATTER OF CINDY NORCROSS,
WINSLOW TOWNSHIP, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY.
__________________________________
Submitted February 14, 2017 – Decided July 17, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Sumners.
On appeal from New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2014-2525.
Matthew S. Wolfe, attorney for appellant
(Marisa J. Hermanovich, on the brief).
Platt & Riso, P.C., attorneys for respondent
Winslow Township (Eric J. Riso, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Civil Service
Commission (Brian M. Kerr, Deputy Attorney
General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Cindy Norcross appeals from a September 2, 2015 final decision
of the Civil Service Commission (Commission), adopting the initial
decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upholding a Winslow
Township, Department of Public Safety, lay-off plan eliminating
her position of Public Safety Telecomunicator. Having reviewed
the record, we affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the
Initial Decision, as adopted by the Commission. We add these
comments.
In brief summary, on January 17, 2014, the Commission approved
the Township's lay-off plan to eliminate its police dispatch
operations and staff positions because the dispatch
responsibilities would be taken over by the Camden County
Communication Center at no cost and a savings of approximately
$570,000 to the Township for the 2014 fiscal year and substantial
savings thereafter. The Commission determined that the plan was
in substantial compliance with N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.14.
Norcross appealed her lay-off, contending, in pertinent part,
that the Township failed "to ensure that the employees getting
laid off would secure a position with [Camden] County, [which] is
in fact hiring to fill the positions being transferred[,]" or in
the alternative, she is entitled to be transferred to another
Township position based upon her seventeen-years of seniority.
The ALJ granted summary decision to the Township dismissing the
appeal. The ALJ found there were no issues of material facts that
prevented a determination of whether the Township's lay-off plan
was a good faith elimination of the dispatcher services of the
police department for reasons of economy and efficiency in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1; N.J.A.C. 4A:8-1.1(a). The ALJ
2 A-0807-15T3
found that Norcross proffered no facts demonstrating that the
Township acted in bad faith when it eliminated its police dispatch
operations and staff positions at a significant cost savings.
There was also no support for her allegation that the approved
lay-off plan was based on factual inaccuracies. As for Norcross'
claim that there were hirings and promotions after the plan was
implemented, the ALJ found that there was no demonstration of "bad
faith, only reorganization of municipal personnel." Moreover,
there was no indication that after her position was eliminated,
she was denied a position for which she was entitled, due to
inappropriate reasons. The Commission agreed.
Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal
standards, we find no basis to disturb the Commission's decision.
The ALJ's factual findings, which the Commission adopted, are
supported by substantial credible evidence. See In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We conclude that
the Commission has followed the law in deciding this matter
summarily, and its action was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. See In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007).
Further, Norcross' arguments as without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
3 A-0807-15T3