• Richard Anderson v. Newton Retirement Board, CR-04-353 (DALA, 2008)

    One time lump sum payment, even when labeled longevity pay, was not regular compensation received by a teacher who ended his employment through a termination agreement with notice given of his intention to retire. The payment had not been regular and recurring, and was made in contemplation of his retirement.
  • Gerard Burke, et al. v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-293, -294, -296, -298,-315,-316, -362 (DALA 2009)

    Pursuant to William Bulger v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 447 Mass. 651 (2006), the cash housing allowances paid to eight college presidents in the three years prior to their retirements were regular compensation for purposes of calculating their retirement allowances. The State Board of Retirement's failure to include them in the calculation of their retirement allowances was an error that must be corrected under G. L. c. 32, s. 20(5)(c)(2). The Board's decision to refuse to correct the error for those who retired prior to July 2, 2002 was erroneous as inconsistent with the clear language of the statute.
  • Kenneth Cardone v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-07-611 (DALA, 2009)

    The Teachers' Retirement System properly excluded the increases received by the Petitioner during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years in excess of the 4% increases that he had consistently received in previous years as regular compensation in the calculation of his superannuation retirement benefit. The Teachers' Retirement System determined that the excess increases were awarded on the basis of Mr. Cardone's announced plans to retire effective June 30, 2006.
  • Dempsey, Shea, Schraft v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-674 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioners are entitled to have the full amount of their ELBO payments included as regular compensation. PERAC regulation 840 CMR 15.03 specifically grandfathers members who had ELBO payments included in contracts in effect on or before January 25, 2006.
  • William Davison v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-458 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner is entitled to have only ten days of the salary he received for his extended school year deemed regular compensation in the calculation of his superannuation retirement benefits.
  • James Deming v. Middlesex Ret. Bd., CR-07-674 (DALA, 2008)

    The petitioner's flexible spending allowances and 2% salary increases qualified as regular compensation because they were recurrent, regular and ordinary remuneration for the petitioner's services. A one-time bonus did not qualify as regular compensation under Chapter 32.
  • J. Kenneth Dow v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-319 (DALA, 2008)

    Teacher's additional pay for work as Director of Continuing Education was not regular compensation even though his annual teacher contract included an annual payment for this service, because the continuing education program was not an adjunct to the regular high school program.
  • Henry Erelli v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-602 (DALA, 2008)

    Petitioner not entitled to have payments for two additional days of summer work included in his regular compensation. These monies were not payable under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Antonio Fermano v. Malden Retirement Bd., CR-03-179 (DALA, 2008)

    Applying the ruling in Pelonzi v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 451 Mass. 475 (2008), the personal use value of a police chief's employer-supplied automobile is not regular compensation for purposes of calculating a superannuation retirement allowance.
  • Kenneth Gavin v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-342 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner's salary that he received for serving as an adjunct professor at Cape Cod Community College (CCCC) was determined not to be regular compensation for the purposes of the calculation of his superannuation retirement benefit. The decision was based on the fact that the Petitioner was not a member of the State Retirement System or any other retirement system during the course of his employment at CCCC.
  • Thomas George v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-208 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner was not permitted to include as regular compensation various benefits he had received while employed as State Representative including monthly allowances and travel per diem reimbursements.
  • Manuel Goncalves v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-463

    Remuneration paid to the Petitioner for 14 days of work performed during the summer does not constitute regular compensation because the extra days and extra remuneration were not provided for in the Petitioner's annual contract, but were agreed to in an oral agreement with the Superintendent.
  • Hurwitz, Hastings, Holubecki and Keating v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-490,-06-551, 06-1085, -08-428 (DALA 2009)

    Language in a collective bargaining agreement that limited certain payments to apply only to a teacher "who intends to retire within three years," is held to be an early retirement incentive and not regular compensation. Held that the evidence did not establish that the language was included only as a result of a clerical error.
  • Frank Kaminsky v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-390 (DALA 2009)

    Payments petitioner received for summer teaching, outreach teaching, research, and contributions to extra work in a video tape instructional program were not regular compensation. These tasks did not fall within the scope of his regular duties as a Professor in the Engineering Department of the University of Massachusetts. Rather, these additional payments fall within the category of overtime pay, or pay that was given for work performed beyond his normal work schedule as a Professor. As such, these payments are specifically excluded from the definition of regular compensation by both G.L. c. 32 s.1 and 840 CMR 15.03(2)(a).
  • Margaret Kelliher v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-08-112 (DALA, 2009)

    The Petitioner is entitled to have the $2,500 of the $4,000 stipend she received for serving as Exemplary Director during the 2007-2008 school year included as regular compensation in the calculation of her superannuation retirement benefit as that stipend is included in the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Richard LaMothe v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-619 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner is not entitled to have the payments he received for an overload teaching assignment included as regular compensation as the payments for overload teaching assignments were not set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Paula Meara v. Springfield Retirement Board, CR-05-956 (DALA, 2008)

    Payments made to the Petitioner were determined not to be included as regular compensation in the calculation of her superannuation retirement benefits as these payments were made as a result of her having given notice of retirement.
  • Mary Moore v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-268 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner is entitled to have only $1218 of the total stipend she received included as regular compensation for retirement purposes. The increase she received was not listed in the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Roger Murphy v. State Board of Retirement, CR-08-248 (DALA 2009)

    Petitioner's request that payments to him for part-time employment with the City of Boston be included as regular compensation for the purpose of calculating his retirement allowance from the State Retirement System is denied because where a person is employed by two public employers, retirement benefits must be determined independently for each employer.
  • Stephanie O'Neil v. Boston Retirement Board, CR-07-68 (DALA 2009)

    Boston Municipal Police officer was entitled to have holiday pay, educational incentive pay and academy pay included as regular compensation in the calculation of her accidental disability retirement benefits.
  • Maurice O'Shea v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-295 (DALA 2009)

    Pursuant to William Bulger v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 447 Mass. 651 (2006), the cash housing allowance paid to a college president in the three years prior to his retirement was regular compensation for purposes of calculating his retirement allowance. The State Board of Retirement's failure to include it in the calculation of his retirement allowance was an error that must be corrected under G. L. c. 32, s. 20(5)(c)(2). The Board's decision to refuse to correct the error because the Petitioner retired prior to July 2, 2002 was erroneous as inconsistent with the clear language of the statute.
  • Vincent Pagliarulo v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-446 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner was allowed to include only ten days of the twelve days that he worked during the summer months as regular compensation as the ordinary meaning of the term two weeks as contained in the collective bargaining agreement referred to two work weeks or ten days.
  • Marie Parente v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-187 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner was not permitted to include as regular compensation various benefits she had received while employed as a State Representative including monthly allowances, travel per diem reimbursements, and the value of a parking spot.
  • Robert Parsons v. Hampden County Retirement Board, CR-06-440 (DALA, 2008)

    Longevity payments made to the Petitioner are regular compensation as he was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect prior to the promulgation of 840 CMR 15.03 (2).
  • Margaret Patz v. State Board of Retirement, CR-07-297 (DALA, 2008)

    The value of a parking space is not regular compensation because a parking space is a benefit provided by the employer to enable the Petitioner to perform her job more effectively and is not intended to compensate the Petitioner for her services.
  • John Peron v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-07-93 (DALA, 2008)

    Pay a teacher received during his last year of teaching that was included in his collective bargaining agreement for additional teaching work, was not regular compensation because he was only eligible to receive the additional pay because he was retiring.
  • Ann Reen v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-05-802 (DALA, 2010)

    The Petitioner is not entitled to have the stipend she received for serving as Guidance “Associate” during the 2002-2005 school years included as regular compensation in the calculation of her superannuation retirement benefit as the remuneration for that stipend is not included in the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Rowell, et al. v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-420,-444, -456, -474,-491,-492,-492, -513 (DALA 2009)

    The Petitioners, teachers in the same school system, irrevocably resigned from their positions as required by their union contract, in order to receive a last year’s salary increase. That requirement prevents the increase from being regular compensation that can be used in calculating their retirement allowances.
  • Angelo Scacchi v. Malden Retirement Board, CR-06-598 (DALA, 2008)

    Remuneration received by the Petitioner for "work extra," and a 1% base wage increase the Petitioner would have received if he had remained at work until June 30, 2006 are not regular compensation.
  • John Scaduto v. Boston Retirement Board, CR-07-493 (DALA, 2009)

    Although Petitioner's holiday, uniform allowance and sick time buy-out pay differentials in his union contract are not regular compensation, his educational, longevity, public safety, and shift commander pay differentials are regular compensation, and should have been included in the calculation of his retirement allowance. Despite inquiring before he received his first retirement check which if any of his pay differentials were part of his retirement calculation, Petitioner never received a response in writing from Respondent. Although the appeal was filed months after the first retirement check was received, Petitioner's appeal is timely filed.
  • George Shattuck v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-465 (DALA, 2009)

    The remuneration received by the Petitioner for teaching an extra class was not salary and therefore not regular compensation for purposes of computing his retirement allowance where he was paid for each hour that he taught, but was not paid for the hours he did not teach when he was out sick
  • Beverly Tramontana v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-592 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioner was not entitled to include certain payments made to her by her employer as regular compensation as those payments were made as the result of her having given notice of her retirement.
  • Whitmore and Hall v. Teachers' Retirement System, CR-06-620, 625 (DALA, 2008)

    The Petitioners were not entitled to have the extra days that they worked during the summer as guidance counselors considered as regular compensation as the Collective Bargaining Agreement did not require that the Petitioners work 11 or 12 months per year. In addition, neither the stipend positions nor the remuneration for the summer guidance work was set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
  • Joseph Zygmunt v. State Bd. of Retirement, CR-07-364 (DALA, 2008)

    A maintenance foreman was required by his collective bargaining agreement to provide or arrange for twenty-four-hour coverage of the facility where he worked, for which he was paid on a weekly basis. Such "stand-by" duty pay received by a member is regular compensation where it is ordinary, recurrent and repeated.