Town of Longmeadow and Longmeadow Association of Clerical Employees CAS-13-2758 and CAS-13-2759 Cerb Decision (August 22, 2014).The Longmeadow Association of Clerical Employees (Union) seeks to accrete three titles into its bargaining unit of clerical employees employed by the Town of Longmeadow (Town): Benefits Coordinator; Human Resources Specialist/Fire Department Administrative Assistant; and Human Resources Assistant/Assessor’s Clerk. The Town opposes accretion on grounds that all three positions are confidential employees within the meaning of Section 1 of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) and therefore may not lawfully be included in an appropriate bargaining unit. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) grants the Union’s petition as to the Benefits Coordinator. The Board finds, however, that the incumbents in the remaining two positions are confidential employees and therefore dismisses the Union’s petition as to these titles.
MUP-10-5895 CERB Decision file size 2MB
City of Boston and Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, MUP-10-5895 Decsion on Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision (August 8, 2014). In May 2010, the City of Boston (City) eliminated the position of Street Sweeping Initiative (SSI) supervisor in the Boston Police Department (Department) and discontinued its practice of assigning members of the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation (Federation or Union) bargaining unit to this position on a regularly-scheduled overtime basis during the SSI season. The Federation filed a charge with the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) alleging that the City’s actions repudiated an oral agreement and violated its bargaining obligation under M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law). The DLR investigated the charge and issued a three-count complaint. Following a hearing, a DLR hearing officer held that the City’s decisions did not repudiate a May 2007 oral settlement agreement establishing this position because the agreement impermissibly infringed on the Boston Police Commissioner’s non-delegable authority to organize and assign officers within the Department under Chapter 291, §§10 and 11 of the Acts of 1906, as amended by Chapter 322 of the Acts of 1962. She also held that the City did not have to bargain over its decision to eliminate the SSI supervisor and the overtime assignment associated with that position, because this was a level of services decision that fell within the City’s exclusive managerial prerogative. The Hearing Officer further held, however, that the City had unlawfully failed to bargain over the impacts of these decisions. Based on the impacts-only bargaining obligation that she found, the Hearing Officer declined to order a full retroactive make-whole remedy, instead, ordering the City to restore the economic equivalent of the status quo ante during the period of impact bargaining. Both parties filed timely-cross appeals from this decision with the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Hearing Officer’s decision and remedy in its entirety.
Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc. SUP-11-1399 Hearing Officer Decision (August 8, 2014). The issue in this case is whether the Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (the University) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by: a) repudiating an oral agreement; and b) failing to bargain to resolution or impasse over the decision to subcontract armored car services and the impacts of that decision on certain unit members’ hours of work and workweek. I find that the University failed to bargain to resolution or impasse over the impacts of decision to subcontract armored car services on unit members’ hours of work and workweek. However, I dismiss the allegations that the University repudiated the oral agreement and that the University failed to bargain to resolution or impasse over the decision to subcontract the armored car services.
SUP-12-1541 H.O. Decision file size 1MB
AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO and Department of Higher Education, Mass College of Arts & Design. SUP-12-1541 Hearing Officer Decision (August 25, 2014).This case presents two issues: whether the Department of Higher Education Massachusetts College of Art and Design (College or Employer) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by repudiating a settlement agreement dated February 15, 1995 (1995 Agreement) between the College and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 93 (Union) and/or whether the College violated the Law by contracting out electrical work on the Kennedy 2 Project without bargaining to resolution or impasse.