• MUP-12-2466 H.O. Decision  pdf format of MUP-12-2466 H.O. Decision
file size 1MB

     

    City of Springfield and AFSCME Council 93, MUP-12-2466 Hearing Officer’s Decision (November 25, 2014). The issues are whether the City of Springfield (City or Employer) violated Section 10(a)(5) and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c.150E (the Law): (1) by installing tracking devices in vehicles driven by City employees and recording the employees’ location, idle time, distance driven, number of stops and speeding events in those vehicles without first giving the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93 (Union or AFSCME) prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over the decision to install the tracking devices and record relative data, and the impacts of that decision; and (2) by failing to bargain in good faith with the Union when it refused to bargain on November 27 and 28, 2012 after AFSCME requested to meet with the City on those dates to negotiate over the decision to install tracking devices and record relative data. 

    For the reasons explained below, I find that the City violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by installing tracking devices in vehicles driven by City employees and recording the employees’ location, idle time, distance driven, number of stops and speeding events in those vehicles without first giving the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over the decision to install the tracking devices and record relative data, and the impacts of that decision.  I also find that the City violated the Law by refusing to bargain with the Union on November 27 and 28, 2012, after AFSCME requested to meet with the City on those dates to bargain over the decision to install tracking devices and record relative data.  

  • MUP-13-3371 et.al. CERB Decision  pdf format of MUP-13-3371 et.al. CERB Decision
file size 2MB

    City of Boston Boston Police Superior Officers Federation and Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Federation and Boston Police Patrolman’s Association, MUP-13-3371, MUP-14-3466, MUP-14-3504 CERB Decision (November 7, 2014).  This case is being heard by the CERB in the first instance on a stipulated record. The claims and defenses presented arise out of a bargaining dispute between the City of Boston and its police officer unions regarding the promotional exam procedures the City put in place in 2013 to rank and evaluate applicants for sergeant, lieutenant, and captain positions.  The Complaint issued on behalf of the charging parties, the BPSOF, BPDBS and the  BPPA, alleges that the  City violated Chapter 150E by unilaterally implementing a change in established testing procedures (Count I, Section 1O(a)(S) violation); failing to respond to  information requests  made  by the  BPSOF and the BPDBS (Counts II & Ill, Section 10(a)(5) violation); and implementing new promotional procedures  while  this  issue  was  pending  before  the  Joint  Labor  Management Committee on Police and Fire (JLMC) in a case between the City and the BPSOF (Count IV,  Section  1O(a)(6) violation).

  • SUP-13-2604 H.O. Decision.pdf  pdf format of SUP-13-2604 H.O. Decision.pdf

    Commonwealth of Mass, Department of Corrections and Mass Corrections Officer’s Union, SUP-13-2604, Hearing Officer’s Decision (November 25, 2014). The issue is whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Correction (Employer or DOC) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by transferring the bargaining unit work associated with the Assistant Assignment Officer position to non-bargaining unit personnel without first giving the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (Union or MCOFU) prior notice and opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the decision to transfer bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit personnel and the impact of that decision.