COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO VS. NEW
JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
I/M/O JOB BANDING FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST 1 AND 2, AND NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 1 AND 2,
OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
I/M/O CHANGES IN THE STATE CLASSIFICATION
PLAN AND JOB BANDING REQUEST, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
A-4912-13T3/A-3041-14T3/A-0230-15T3/A-0232-15T3/ A-
0274-15T3/ A-0275-15T3 (CONSOLIDATED)
New Jersey State Legislature and other parties
The
challenged several administrative agency decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pertaining to a Job Banding Rule (the Rule), N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2A. The CSC adopted and implemented the Rule after the Legislature invoked its veto power, pursuant to N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6 (the Legislative Review Clause), finding in numerous concurrent resolutions that the Rule conflicted with the Civil Service Act (CSA), N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6, which incorporated the text of N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2.
challenged several administrative agency decisions rendered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pertaining to a Job Banding Rule (the Rule), N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2A. The CSC adopted and implemented the Rule after the Legislature invoked its veto power, pursuant to N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6 (the Legislative Review Clause), finding in numerous concurrent resolutions that the Rule conflicted with the Civil Service Act (CSA), N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6, which incorporated the text of N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2.
We concluded that the Legislature is entitled to
substantial deference when it exercises its constitutional power
to invalidate an administrative rule or regulation pursuant to
the Legislative Review Clause. We held, however, that we may
reverse the Legislature's invalidation of an administrative
executive rule or regulation if (1) the Legislature has not
complied with the procedural requirements of the Legislative
Review Clause; (2) its action violates the protections afforded
by the Federal or New Jersey Constitution; or (3) the
Legislature's concurrent resolution amounts to a patently
erroneous interpretation of "the language of the statute which
the rule or regulation is intended to implement."
We reversed the decisions and concluded that the Legislature validly exercised its authority under the Legislative Review Clause. We therefore set aside the Rule, in all of its amended forms.
We reversed the decisions and concluded that the Legislature validly exercised its authority under the Legislative Review Clause. We therefore set aside the Rule, in all of its amended forms.
