City of Worcester and NAGE, Local 495, ARB-107-2009 Arbitration Award (December 1, 2015). The issues in this case are: 1. Whether the City is authorized to offer an opportunity out of turn in the event of an overtime skip? 2. If so, did Mr. Berenson accept an opportunity out of turn as a remedy for an overtime skip on February 3, 2009? 3. If not, what shall be the remedy? Based on the parties’ extensive prior arbitral history with this issue, the arbitrator found that the City is not authorized to make an offer to an individual employee that it is aware is an inappropriate remedy for a violation of the overtime provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The City was ordered to make the grievant whole for his lost overtime opportunity.
City of Somerville and Somerville Police Employees Association, MUP-13-2977 Decision on Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision (December 30, 2015). At issue in this appeal is a Hearing Officer’s decision, issued on July 1, 2015, that the City of Somerville (City or Employer) refused to bargain in good faith by implementing a decision to assign bargaining unit members to perform the duties of the non-unit position of Console Operator without first giving the Somerville Police Employees Association (Union) the opportunity to bargain to impasse over the impacts of that decision. The City argues that although the Hearing Officer, “in essence, completely adopted the City’s position” that the assignment of Station Officers to the front desk or “bubble area” was a managerial prerogative that was subject to impact bargaining only, she ordered restoration of the status quo ante and the posting of a “false” notice. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) affirms the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the City violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) by implementing its decision prior to giving the Union the opportunity to bargain to impasse over the impacts of that decision. Further, because the impacts on bargaining unit members’ workload and job duties were an inevitable consequence of the City’s core managerial decision, a prospective order to bargain over these impacts is appropriate.