City of Lowell and AFSCME Council 93, ARB-005-2011 Arbitration Award (March 31, 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 discharge of Ronald Mercier was appropriate under the just cause standard, and the grievance is denied.
ARB-12-1771 file size 1MB
Town of Falmouth and AFSCME Council 93, ARB-12-1771 Arbitration Award (March 31, 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: I find that the grievant, Brian Bourque was not justly suspended and the grievant is to be made whole for his losses and all references to a five-day suspension shall be removed from his personnel file.
Lecrenski Bros, Inc. (LBI) and Amalgamated Transportation Union (ATU), Local 448, ARB-12-2275, Arbitration Award (March 18, 2014). Did the Employer violate Article 12, Section 7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA, or Agreement) by refusing to pay• certain employees a two (2) hour minimum guarantee for mid-day school runs on eight (8) occasions when there were half days during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years? If so, what shall be the remedy?
City of Fall River and Teamsters Local 251 ARB-13-2673 Arbitration Award (March 7, 2014). On March 4, 2013, Teamsters, Local 251 (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. The undersigned Arbitrator conducted a hearing at Fall River City Hall on October 28, 2013. The parties’ filed briefs on November 15, 2013. The Issue Did the City violate the collective bargaining agreement by not giving the grievant the job he bid on? If so what shall be the remedy?
 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.”
City of Quincy and Massachusetts Laborers’ District Council, ARB-13-3199, Arbitration Award (March 27, 2014). Is the Union’s grievance arbitrable? If so, did the City violate Article XII of the Agreement when it denied the grievant’s request to use compensatory time (“comp time”) in June 2013? If so, what shall be the remedy?
Wellesley School Committee and Wellesley Educational Professional Support Association, MCR-13-3091 (March 28, 2014) The issue presented in this case is whether any of the four disputed positions should be excluded from the petitioned-for bargaining unit ,because they are managerial, confidential or supervisory employees within the meaning of Section 1 of the Law, because they lack a community of interest with the rest of the petitioned-for positions and/or because they are excluded by a prior agreement. We conclude that the disputed titles share a community of interest with each other and the undisputed titles in the proposed unit, and are not otherwise excluded from exercising collective bargaining rights.
MUP-10-6020 file size 3MB
Town of Weymouth and AFSCME, Council 93 MUP-10-6020 CERB Decision (March 10, 2014). The issue before the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) on appeal of a hearing officer decision issued on July 12, 2013 is whether the Hearing Officer correctly concluded that the Town of Weymouth (Town) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Chapter 150E (the Law) by: a) unilaterally eliminating the traffic supervisors’ jobs without bargaining to resolution or impasse over the decision and the effects of that decision; and b) unilaterally transferring the traffic supervisors’ work to non-unit safety guards employed by the Town’s School Committee. On appeal, the Town challenges the Hearing Officer’s ruling on both counts, as well as the remedy awarded.  The Town asserts that its decision to eliminate the traffic supervisors’ positions was a level of services decision over which no decisional bargaining was required and that it should not be held liable for the School Department’s later decision to hire school safety guards to perform certain duties that it eliminated for budget reasons. In a similar vein, the Town contends that the Hearing Officer erred when she concluded that it and the School Department are the same employer for purposes of determining whether the Town unlawfully transferred bargaining unit work to the safety guards. The Town further claims error in the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the Charging Party, AFSCME Council 93, (Union) did not waive its right to bargain over the elimination of the traffic supervision positions. As to remedy, the Town argues that because its decision here was a level of services decision, any remedy awarded should be limited to ordering the Town to bargain over the impacts of its decision.
 AFSCME Council 93 did not file a response to the Town’s supplementary statement on review.
City of New Bedford and AFSCME, Council 93 MUP-10-6032 Decision on Appeal (March 31, 3014). The City of New Bedford (City or Employer) appeals from a June 27, 2013 Hearing Officer decision holding that the City violated Section 10(a)(5) of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) when it reduced bargaining unit members’ hours of work without providing the Union with an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over that decision and its impacts. The Employer filed a timely notice of appeal and a supplementary statement arguing that certain findings were erroneous and that the Investigator’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence. The charging party, AFSCME Council 93 (Union) filed a supplementary statement in response to the Employer’s appeal. After careful consideration of the parties’ supplementary statements and the record as a whole, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision in its entirety.
Town of Cohasset and Cohasset Permanent Firefighters, Local 2804 IAFF MUP-12-1495 H.O. Decision, (March 14, 2014). The issue in this case is whether the Town of Cohasset (Town) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively Section 10(a)(1) of Chapter 150E (the Law) by: a) repudiating a December 2, 2009 Memorandum of Agreement (December 2, 2009 MOA); b) unilaterally transferring bargaining unit work to a non-unit employee, the assistant fire chief; and c) failing to timely provide requested information to the Cohasset Permanent Firefighters, Local 2804 (I.A.F.F.) that was relevant and reasonably necessary. I find that the Town unilaterally transferred bargaining unit work and failed to timely provide relevant and reasonably necessary information to the Union. However, I dismiss the allegation that the City repudiated the December 2, 2009 MOA when it created the position of assistant fire chief.