MUP-09-5623 H.O. Decision file size 1MB
City of Springfield and Springfield Organization of Library Employees, MUP-09-5623 Hearing Officer’s Decision (July 18, 2014) The issues in this case are whether the City of Springfield (City) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) when it: 1) unilaterally reduced the hours of work and benefits of the part-time senior clerk position; and/or 2) bypassed the Springfield Organization of Library Employees (SOLE or Union) when it hired Leslie Lewis (Lewis) and Marion Fontaine (Fontaine), and offered to recall Rose Talmont (Talmont) to employment into non-benefitted, 18.5 hour senior clerk positions.
MUP-12-2430 H.O. Decision file size 1MB
Town of Stoneham and Stoneham Police Association, MUP-12-2430 Hearing Officer’s Decision (July 18, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the Town of Stoneham (Town) violated Sections 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law), by transferring the duty to provide medical advice during emergency medical calls from the Stoneham Police Association (Union) to non-unit personnel without giving the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the decision and the impacts of that decision on employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
City of Medford and Medford Fire Fighters Union, Local 1032, MUP-13-2687 Hearing Officer’s Decision (July 7, 2014) The issue is whether the City of Medford (City), discriminated against Timothy Beckwith (Beckwith) and William O'Brien (O'Brien) for engaging in concerted, protected activities in violation of Section 1O(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 1O(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) when it issued letters of reprimand against O'Brien and Beckwith on March 7 and 8, 2013, respectively. Based on the record, and for the reasons explained below, I find that the City violated the Law when it reprimanded O'Brien and Beckwith on March 7 and 8, 2013, in retaliation against their concerted, protected activities.
Town of Hudson and Hudson Superior Officers Association, MCOP, LOCAL 433, MUP-13-3223 CERB Decision (July 24, 2014) This matter arises out of Case No. WMAM-12-2446, in which the DLR certified the Hudson Superior Officers Association, MCOP, Local 433 (Union) as the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit comprised of the Town of Hudson’s superior police officers, including the position of Captain, but excluding the Chief and all sworn police officers below the rank of Sergeant. After the certification, the Town objected to the Captain’s inclusion in the bargaining unit on the grounds that the Captain was a managerial or confidential employee, or did not otherwise share a community of interest with the certified bargaining unit. The DLR treated the Town’s objections as a motion to reinvestigate the certification pursuant to 456 CMR 14.16, and held a hearing to address the issues raised by the Town’s objections. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) issued a Decision upon Reinvestigation of Certification on August 7, 2013 declining to remove the Captain from the certified unit. The Town subsequently refused to bargain with the Union over the Captain’s terms and conditions of employment and the Union filed the instant prohibited practice charge alleging that the Town’s conduct violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law. The charge was investigated and the DLR issued an expedited complaint alleging that the Town had violated the Law as alleged. On June 26, 2014, a DLR hearing officer granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Town unlawfully refused to bargain.
 The Board’s decision is reported at 40 MLC 42 (August 7, 2013).