• Board of Higher Education and Massachusetts State College Association pdf format of Board of Higher Education and MA State College Assoc
    SUP-05-5212 H.O. DECISION Board of Higher Education and Massachusetts State College Association, 37 MLC 194 (May 11, 2011). The issue in this case was whether the Employer violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by repudiating a settlement agreement with the Union that detailed the time period for which an employee would reimburse the Employer for the cost of a replacement worker hired in connection with the employee’s disciplinary suspension.
  • Town of Plymouth and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO, 37 MLC 199  pdf format of Town of Plymouth and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO
    MUP-05-4385 (May 16, 2011). The issue in this case was whether the Employer violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by failing to provide the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about its decision and impacts of its decision to cease crediting bargaining unit members with leave time for blood donation during certain limited off duty hours. 
  • Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court and NAGE pdf format of Chief Justice of the Trial Court and NAGE
file size 2MB
    SUP-08-5454  H.O. DECISION Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court and NAGE, 37 MLC 181, aff’d 37 MLC 230 (June 10, 2011). The issue was whether the Employer violated Section 10(a)(5), Section 10(a)(6), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by withdrawing economic proposals that it had offered during a fact-finding hearing before the fact-finder issued his findings and recommendations.
  • Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court and NAGE, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of Chief Justice of the Trial Court and NAGE
file size 1MB
    SUP-08-5454 CERB DECISION ON APPEAL Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court and NAGE. The CERB affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision, basing its affirmance on the totality of the Employer’s conduct. The CERB agreed with the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the impact of the changed economic circumstances on the Employer justified the withdrawal of its economic proposals.
  • City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union pdf format of City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union
file size 1MB
    MUP-06-4836 and MUP-08-5150 H.O. DECISION City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union, 1144(A) of the Laborer’s International Union of North America, 37 MLC 205 (May 19, 2011), aff’d 38 MLC 96 (November 2, 2011).  The issue in this case was whether the City had violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) by implementing a new time clock/punch-card system beyond a test period to which the Union had agreed, installing a surveillance camera in the Department of Public Works (DPW) garage, and requiring unit members in the DPW Water Department to sign mandatory releases for CORI background checks.
  • City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union
file size 1MB
    MUP-06-4836 and MUP-08-5150 CERB DECISION ON APPEAL City of Taunton and Public Employees Local Union, 1144(A) of the Laborer’s International Union of North America.
  • Westborough School Committee and Westborough Teachers Association/MTA pdf format of Westborough School Comm and Teachers Assoc
file size 1MB
    MUP-08-5237 H.O. DECISION Westborough School Committee and Westborough Teachers Association/MTA, 38 MLC 13 (June 29, 2011). The Hearing Officer found that the Employer violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Law when the Superintendent of Schools made comments to the Union’s President that were of a threatening nature, including advising the President that public comments that were made about the Superintendent were slanderous and that the Superintendent had contacted a lawyer. 
  • Department of Children and Families' and AFSCME/SEIU Local 509 pdf format of Department of Children and Families' and AFSCME/SEIU Lo
file size 1MB
    SUP-09-5485 The issue in this case is whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting through the Department of Children and Families (Employer or DCF), violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by failing to bargain in good faith over the impacts of its decision to implement a new service delivery model called the “Integrated Casework Practice Model”  (ICPM).  August 2, 2011. 
  • Town of East Bridgewater and East Bridgewater School Committee and East Bridgewater Education Association pdf format of Town of East Bridgewater, School Comm, Education Assoc
    MUP-07D-5095 and MUP-07D-5115 H.O. DECISION Town of East Bridgewater and East Bridgewater School Committee and East Bridgewater Education Association,  38 MLC 52 (August 18, 2011), aff’d, 38 MLC 164 (January 13, 2012).  The Hearing Officer found that the Employer violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union by implementing changes to employees’ health insurance co-payments without first giving notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse. 
  • Town of East Bridgewater and East Bridgewater School Committee and East Bridgewater Education Association, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of Town of East Bridgewater, School Comm, Education Assoc
file size 1MB
    MUP-07D-5095 and MUP-07D-5115 CERB DECISION ON APPEAL Town of East Bridgewater and East Bridgewater School Committee and East Bridgewater Education Association.  The sole issue on appeal was when the six- month period of limitations begins to run in unilateral change cases when the employer provides the union with advance notification of the change and the parties subsequently bargain.  The CERB affirmed the Hearing Officer’s ruling that the charge was timely.
  • City of Boston and Boston Police Superior Officers Federation pdf format of City of Boston and Boston Police Superior Officers Fed
file size 1MB
    MUP-06-4699 H.O. DECISION 38 MLC 73 (September 12, 2011), aff’d MUP-06-4699 (March 30, 2012).  This case presented two issues: whether the City violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by repudiating a settlement agreement between the City and the Union, and/or by unlawfully transferring bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit personnel.
  • City of Boston and Boston Police Superior Officers Federation CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of City of Boston and Boston Police Superior Officers Fed
    MUP-06-4699 CERB DECISION ON APPEAL aff’d MUP-06-4699 (March 30, 2012):  The City’s sole argument on appeal was based on the Hearing Officer’s ruling that the work at issue was not exclusively bargaining unit work. (The Union did not appeal the Hearing Officer’s determination that the City had not unlawfully transferred bargaining unit work.) The City argued that even assuming it had repudiated the Agreement, it was void as a matter of Law because its terms required the City to unilaterally take work away from two other bargaining units and give it to the Union.  The CERB rejected the City’s argument on grounds that it was raised improperly for the first time on appeal, and that because this issue had not been raised during the hearing, the record was devoid of evidence to support the City’s claim.
  • City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society pdf format of City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Fed
file size 1MB
    MUP-08-5253 H. O. DECISION City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society,  38 MLC 85 (September 28, 2011), aff’d  (March 9, 2012). The issue in this case was whether the City violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by transferring bargaining unit work to a non-bargaining unit employee.
  • City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Fed
    MUP-08-5253 DECISION ON APPEAL TO CERB City of Boston, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society.  The CERB affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision for the reasons stated therein and rejected all of the City’s factual challenges as not supported by the record evidence.  The CERB also found no merit to the City’s claim that the Hearing Officer’s decision was inconsistent with prior CERB dismissal letters involving the same parties. 
  • City of Worcester and National Association of Government Employees, AFL-CIO pdf format of City of Worcester and Nat Assoc of Govt Employees
file size 1MB
    MUP-07-5034 H.O. DECISION City of Worcester and National Association of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, (March 2, 2012). The Hearing Officer held that the City violated Sections 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by failing to bargain in good faith when it refused to grant the Union President paid time off to attend National Executive Board meetings, requiring that he use vacation and personal time to do so.  Appeal to CERB: Pending. 
  • City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO pdf format of City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO
file size 3MB
    MUP-09-5581 and MUP-09-5599 H.O. DECISION City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO,  38 MLC 117 (November 17, 2011), aff’d, MUP-09-5581, MUP-09-5599 (April 2, 2012). The issues in this case were whether the City violated Sections 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by: repudiating a settlement agreement by laying off certain unit member; failing and refusing to bargain about the continued imposition of a weekly one-hour furlough; and unilaterally reducing unit members’ hours of work by implementing half-day furloughs.
  • City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO
file size 3MB
    MUP-09-5581 and MUP-09-5599 DECISION ON APPEAL TO CERB City of New Bedford and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO.  The Union and the City filed cross-appeals.  The CERB affirmed the Hearing Officer’s dismissal of Counts I and II; declined the Union’s request to overturn the Hearing Officer’s factual finding that, at a union meeting to discuss the June 2008 agreement, the City’s mayor refused to guarantee that there would be no layoffs if the Union agreed to furloughs; affirmed the Hearing Officer’s substantive conclusion that the June 2008 agreement was ambiguous, thereby justifying the Hearing Officer’s examination of bargaining history and her ultimate dismissal of both counts and  affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision as to Counts III and IV in its entirety, except for her determination that Boston Housing Authority v. National Conference of Firemen and Oilers, Local 3 (BHA), 458 Mass. 155 (2010) had retroactive effect.
  • Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood  pdf format of Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood
    MUP-10-5831 H.O. DECISION Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood,  38 MLC 64, (August 29, 2011), aff’d, 38 MLC 169 (January 20, 2012). The issue in this case was whether the Town violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by breaching the successor negotiation ground rules.  The Hearing Officer determined that the Select Board Chairman’s radio and newspaper remarks violated the parties’ express agreement that there be no press releases until negotiations reach mediation.  Thus, the Hearing Officer found that the Town violated the Law in the manner alleged.
  • Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood
    MUP-10-5831 CERB DECISION Town of Dartmouth and Dartmouth Police Brotherhood,  38 MLC 64, (August 29, 2011), aff’d, 38 MLC 169 (January 20, 2012). The issue in this case was whether the Town violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by breaching the successor negotiation ground rules.  The Hearing Officer determined that the Select Board Chairman’s radio and newspaper remarks violated the parties’ express agreement that there be no press releases until negotiations reach mediation.  Thus, the Hearing Officer found that the Town violated the Law in the manner alleged.
  • Town of Bourne and Professional Firefighters of Bourne, IAFF Local 1717 pdf format of Town of Bourne and Professional Firefighters of Bourne
file size 2MB
    MUP-10-5928 H.O. DECISION Town of Bourne and Professional Firefighters of Bourne, IAFF Local 1717, 38 MLC 47 (August 9, 2011). The Hearing Officer found that the Employer violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by unlawfully refusing to bargain for a successor contract during the pendency of the Employer’s unit clarification petition, which sought to sever supervisory employees from the bargaining unit.
  • Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO pdf format of Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME
file size 1MB
    MUP-10-5998 H.O. DECISION Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO,  38 MLC 39 (August 4, 2011), aff’d, 38 MLC 83 (September 26, 2011). The issues in this case were whether the Employer’s conduct, including sending a letter to an employee regarding decertification and issuing a verbal warning to the Union President, encouraged, promoted and provided assistance in the initiation, signing or filing of a decertification petition, thereby interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 2 of the Law. 
  • Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO, CERB DECISION ON APPEAL pdf format of Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME
    MUP-10-5998 CERB DECISION ON APPEAL Springfield Housing Authority and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO. The parties filed cross appeals from the Hearing Officer’s decision. The CERB found no merit to the Employer's contention that the Union waived its right to file a ULP by agreeing to a settlement that reduced the level of discipline imposed on the Union President.  The CERB found no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that there was no evidence of the Employer having secured a waiver of all rights or that the Union clearly and unequivocally waived its right to file a charge arising out of the discipline.
  • Everett Teachers Association/MTA/NEA and Eugene W. Dumas, Jr pdf format of Everett Teachers Association/MTA/NEA and Eugene W. Duma
file size 1MB
    MUPL-08-4617 H.O. DECISION Everett Teachers Association/MTA/NEA and Eugene W. Dumas, Jr, 38 MLC 57 (August 24, 2011).  Bifurcated hearing on grievance scheduled for September 14 and 21, 2012. The issue in this case was whether the ETA had breached its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 10(b)(1) of the Law by arbitrarily refusing to arbitrate an employee’s grievance concerning his non-renewal as a teacher, based on his non-membership in the Union. Appeal to CERB: Pending.
  • AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1700 and Justin B. Chase pdf format of  AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1700 and Justin B. Chase
file size 1MB
    MUPL-07-4581 H.O.DECISION AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1700 and Justin B. Chase, 38 MLC 146 (November 30, 2011). The Hearing Officer held that the Union violated breached its duty of fair representation in violation of Section 10(b)(1) of the Law by failing to investigate Chase’s layoff and displacement rights under the collective bargaining agreement and by failing to file a grievance on his behalf.  Appeal to CERB: Pending.
  • City of Boston and Boston Police Detectives pdf format of City of Boston and Boston Police Detectives
file size 1MB
    MUP-08-5370 H.O. DECISION City of Boston and Boston Police Detectives, 38 MLC 131 (November 21, 2011). The issue in this case was whether the City violated Section 10(a)(5), and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by  failing to bargain with the Union about the decision and impacts of the decision to remove take-home vehicles from specialized unit detectives.