ARB-14-3431 & 14-3432 Award.pdf  pdf format of ARB-14-3431 & 14-3432 Award.pdf

Town of Athol and New England Police Benevolent Association ARB-14-3431 and 14-3432 Arbitration Award (December 12, 2014) The issue was whether the Town violated the collective bargaining agreement when it failed to include Quinn Bill pay in the calculation of Injured on Duty pay for Sergeant Richard Aucoin and Officer Craig Deveneau. Article 28 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement specifically excludes Quinn Bill payments from the calculation of Injured on Duty pay.  However, the Union argued that the parties had a long-standing past practice to the contrary, and further, the exclusion violates the statutory provisions of G.L. c. 41 Section 108L, the Quinn Bill Law. I found that the contract language was clear and unambiguous and excluded Quinn Bill payments from Injured on Duty pay. In addition, G.L. c. 41 Section 111F which authorizes Injured on Duty Pay is subject to modification by the parties collective bargaining agreement pursuant to G.L. c. 150E section 7. Therefore, the grievances were denied.

MUP-12-2131 H.O. Decision.pdf  pdf format of MUP-12-2131 H.O. Decision.pdf
file size 4MB

City of Worcester and Thomas C. Duffy MUP-12-2131 Hearing Officer’s Decision (12/16/14). The issue in this case is whether the City of Worcester (City) violated Section 10(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by retaliating against Thomas C. Duffy (Duffy) for engaging in concerted, protected activity

ARB-12-2485 Arbitration Award.pdf  pdf format of ARB-12-2485 Arbitration Award.pdf

City of Worcester and National Association of Government Employees, Local 495 ARB-12-2485 Arbitration Award (December 17, 2014) The issue is whether the City violated the collective bargaining agreement when Daniel Page, Edward Larson and David McPherson were refused two additional hours of holiday pay when they worked four scheduled hours on a holiday. The City did not violate Article 35 of the agreement because the employees did not meet the qualifications of either emergency work or working a full eight hour shift, which would have qualified them for an additional two hours pay. The grievance was therefore denied.

ARB-14-3016, 3269, 3270 Award.pdf  pdf format of ARB-14-3016, 3269, 3270 Award.pdf

City of Worcester and National Association of Government Employees, Local 495, ARB-13-3016, ARB-13-3269 and ARB-13-3270 Arbitration Award (December 17, 2014).  The issue in this case is what should the appropriate remedy be under Article 19 of the Agreement when an employee is bypassed for an overtime opportunity? Compensation is an appropriate remedy where an employee loses an opportunity to earn additional money on an overtime basis.  A lost overtime opportunity cannot be duplicated by offering the next available overtime in the Department.  I find that the City violated Article 19 of the Agreement and award each grievant compensation.

ARB-13-2545 Award.pdf  pdf format of ARB-13-2545 Award.pdf

City of Worcester and National Association of Government Employees, Local 495 ARB-13-2545 Arbitration Award (December 22, 2014) The issue is whether the City violated the collective bargaining agreement when adjunct staff member Anne Johnson worked an overtime shift rather than a Graduate Librarian. The City also contended that the grievance was not arbitrable. Article 19 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement requires the City to develop an overtime roster based on a rotation by seniority. The City correctly applied its guidelines when it called in Anne Johnson for a night shift when Graduate Librarians were unavailable due to their regular work schedule and the grievance was denied. The action grieved by the Union a continuing violation and was timely filed.

SUP-13-3133 H.O. Decision.pdf  pdf format of SUP-13-3133 H.O. Decision.pdf
file size 1MB

Court Administrator of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and National Association of Government Employees SUP-13-3133 (December 23, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the Court Administrator of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  (Trial  Court  or  the  Employer)  violated  Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Chapter 150E (the Law) by repudiating a March  6, 2012  Memorandum  of  Understanding (March  6,  2012  MOU) that  it  had entered into with the National Association of Government Employees (Union).   Based upon a plain reading of the March 6, 2012 MOU, I find that the Trial Court did not violate the Law in the manner alleged.

MUP-13-3153 H.O. Decision.pdf  pdf format of MUP-13-3153 H.O. Decision.pdf

Town of Athol and Permanent Athol Firefighters Association, Local 1751 MUP-13-3153 (December 23, 2014) The issues in this case are whether the Town of Athol (Town) failed to bargain in good faith by not providing the Permanent Athol Firefighters Association, Local 1751 (Union) with information that is relevant and reasonably necessary for the Union to execute its duties as collective bargaining representative, and whether the Town interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 2 of G.L. c. 150E (the Law).

ARB-13-3145 Arbitration Award.pdf  pdf format of ARB-13-3145 Arbitration Award.pdf

Town of Holden and Holden Professional Firefighters Association, ARB-13-3145 Arbitration Award (December 29, 2014). The issue in this case is whether the Town of Holden had just cause to terminate Timothy Fitzgerald?  Mr. Fitzgerald reported to work and was on duty while under the influence of alcohol on May 9, 2013 in violation of the Town of Holden Fire Department’s Rules and Regulations.  Additionally, Mr. Fitzgerald was insubordinate when he drove his personal vehicle on the evening in question after being ordered by his Lieutenant to call for a ride home and not to drive.    I find that the Town had just cause and deny the grievance.