• ARB-12-2207 Arbitration Award  pdf format of ARB-12-2207 Arbitration Award
file size 1MB

    City of Woburn/NEPBA ARB-12-2207 Arbitration Award (June 25, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the City of Woburn had just cause to terminate Mr. Charles Stock?  Stock was unable to satisfy a basic requirement of his position as Woburn Police Officer, the eligibility to carry a firearm in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Woburn Police Department and the Municipal Code for the City of Woburn.  Other criteria also support a finding of just cause including: (a) Stock’s actions on July 28, 2011, (b) his subsequent arrest for assault and battery, and (c) his pleading of sufficient facts to the charge of assault and battery in the Somerville District Court.  I find that the City had just cause and deny the grievance.

  • ARB-13-2610 Arbitration Award  pdf format of ARB-13-2610 Arbitration Award

    Town of Somerset/AFSCME Council 93 ARB-13-2610 Arbitration Award (June 23, 2014) The parties received a full opportunity to present testimony, exhibits and arguments, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses at a hearing. I have considered the issues, and, having studied and weighed the evidence presented, conclude as follows: The grievance is substantively non-arbitrable and the grievance is denied. On February 12, 2013, AFSCME, Council 93 (Union) filed a unilateral petition for Arbitration.  Under the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 23, Section 9P, the Department of Labor Relations (Department) appointed Timothy Hatfield Esq. to act as a single neutral arbitrator with the full power of the Department.[1]  The undersigned Arbitrator conducted a hearing at the Department’s Boston office on November 19, 2013. The parties filed briefs on December 20, 2013.



    [1] Pursuant to Chapter 145 of the Acts of 2007, the Department of Labor Relations “shall have all of the legal powers, authorities, responsibilities, duties, rights, and obligations previously conferred on the … the board of conciliation and arbitration … including without limitation those set forth in chapter 23C, chapter 150, chapter 150A, and chapter 150E of the General Laws.”

     

  • MUP-10-6073 H.O. Decision  pdf format of MUP-10-6073 H.O. Decision
file size 1MB

    City of Northampton/IBPO, Local 390 MUP-10-6079 Hearing Officer Decision (June 16, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the City of Northampton (City or the Employer) violated Sections 10(a)(5), (3) and (1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) when in June of 2010 it failed to pay bargaining unit members of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 390 (Local 390 or Union) certain educational incentive payments for which they were eligible.

  • MUP-12-1897 H.O. Decision  pdf format of MUP-12-1897 H.O. Decision

    City of Lynn/AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO, Local 230 MUP-12-1897 Hearing Officer Decision (June 13, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the City of Lynn (City) 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 with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93, AFL-CIO, Local 203 (AFSCME or Union) by changing the Computer Operator’s work location without first providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the decision and the impacts of the decision on employees’ terms and condition of employment. 

  • MUP-12-2101 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-12-2101 H.O Decision
file size 5MB

    Boston Public Health Commission and Boston Emergency Medical Services, Boston Police Patrolman’s Association IUPA #16807 MUP-12-2101 Hearing Officer Decision and Order (June 25, 2014) The  issue  in  this  case  is  whether  the  Boston  Public  Health  Commission (Commission or Employer) violated Section 1O(a)(S) and, derivatively, Section 1O(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by failing to bargain in good faith  with  the   Boston   Emergency   Medical   Services,   Boston   Police   Patrolmen's Association IUPA #16807 (BEMS-BPPA or Union) when  the Commission  changed health insurance costs for bargaining unit members by changing the plan design and increasing copayments without first  giving the  Union  an  opportunity to  bargain to resolution or impasse over the decision and the impact of the decision on employee terms and conditions of employment.  I conclude that the Commission violated Section 1O(a)(5) of the Law in the manner alleged.

  • MUP-13-2551 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-13-2551 H.O Decision
file size 1MB

    Boston School Committee/SEIU, Local 888 MUP-13-2551 Hearing Officer Decision (June 6, 2014) The issue in this case is whether the Boston School Committee (Employer or Committee) violated Section 10(a)(5) and derivatively, 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E  (the Law) by unilaterally transferring Service Employees International Union, Local 888 (SEIU or Union) bargaining unit work to non-unit personnel.

  • MUP-13-2795 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-13-2795 H.O Decision
file size 1MB

    Boston School Committee/Boston Teachers Union MUP-13-2795 Hearing Officer Decision (June 24, 2014) The issue is whether the Boston School Committee (School Committee or Committee) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by transferring paraprofessional duties to non-unit personnel without providing the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse.  

  • MUP-13-2912 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-13-2912 H.O Decision

    Boston School Committee/Boston Teacher’s Union MUP-13-2912 Hearing Officer Decision (June 13, 2014) The issue is whether the Boston School Committee (School Committee or Committee) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by failing to provide information that is relevant and reasonably necessary for the Boston Teachers Union (Union) to execute its duties as collective bargaining representative.  Based on the record and for the reasons explained below, I find that the School Committee violated the Law as alleged. 

  • MUP-13-3055 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-13-3055 H.O Decision
file size 3MB

    Boston School Committee/Boston Teachers Union MUP-13-3055 Hearing Officer Decision (June 9, 2014) The issues are whether the Boston School Committee (School Committee or Committee) violated Sections 10(a)(3), (4), (5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by:  1) retaliating against three unit members for their protected, concerted activity; 2) requiring ABA Specialists at the Haynes School to perform classroom paraprofessional duties without providing the Boston Teachers Union (Union) with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over the decision and the impacts of the decision on employees’ terms and conditions of employment; and 3) failing to provide information that is relevant and reasonably necessary for the Union to execute its duties as collective bargaining representative. 

  • MUP-13-3223 Amended H.O Ruling on Motion  pdf format of MUP-13-3223 Amended H.O Ruling on Motion

    Town of Hudson and Hudson Superior Officers Association, MCOP, Local 433 Hearing Officers Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment (June 26, 2014) The issue presented by the Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment is whether the Town of Hudson (Town) failed and refused to bargain with the Hudson Superior Officers Association, MCOP, Local 433 (Union) in violation of Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, (a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) concerning the terms and conditions of employment of the position of Captain.  I find that summary judgment is appropriate here for the allegations in the Complaint of Prohibited Practice where there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the parties are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  It is undisputed that on August 26, 2012, the Town refused to bargain with the Union over the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the Captain who is a member of the bargaining unit as certified by the CERB in Town of Hudson, 40 MLC 42, WMAM-12-2013 (August 7, 2013)

  • SUP-10-5601 CERB Decision  pdf format of SUP-10-5601 CERB Decision
file size 1MB

    Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts – Amherst/AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO SUP-10-5601 CERB Decision (June 27, 2014). This matter comes before the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) on timely cross-appeals of a Hearing Officer decision issued on August 14, 2013.  The Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (University or Employer) appeals from the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that it independently violated Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) when it denied a bargaining unit member’s request for union representation at a meeting that the Hearing Officer found was investigatory in nature and which the bargaining unit member reasonably believed might result in discipline.  The University also appeals from the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that it violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law when it unilaterally changed a past practice of advising bargaining unit members about their right to have a union representative present at a meeting at which “Weingarten” rights attached.  The Union filed a timely cross-appeal with respect to the remedy only, specifically, the Hearing Officer’s refusal to reinstate the bargaining unit member, who was terminated after the interview for repeated workplace misconduct, including “verbally abusive and disrespectful” behavior during the interview.  Both parties filed responses to each other’s appeals.

  • SUP-10-5606 H.O Decision  pdf format of SUP-10-5606 H.O Decision
file size 2MB

    AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO/Commonwealth of Massachusetts, SUP-10-5606 Hearing Officer Decision (June 3, 2014) The issue is whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth of Employer), Secretary of Administration and Finance, Department of Developmental Services (DDS or Department), discriminated against Peter Horsman (Horsman) for engaging in concerted, protected activity in violation of Sections 10(a)(3), 10(a)(4) and derivatively Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) when it reprimanded him in 2009 and 2010[1] and terminated his employment as a DDS motor truck driver (MTD) on August 21, 2010. 



    [1] Although not alleged in the Complaint, the parties litigated the issue of Horsman’s reprimands at the hearing and argued it in their briefs.  Conduct not specifically pleaded in a complaint may form the basis for an unfair labor practice finding if the conduct relates to the general subject matter of the complaint, and the issue has been fully litigated.  See Town of Norwell, 18 MLC 1263, 1264, MUP-6962 (Jan. 22, 1992).