MUP-13-2954 HO Decision file size 1MB
Town of Shrewsbury and Shrewsbury Firefighters Association, Local 4613, I.A.F.F. MUP-13-2954 Hearing Officer Decision (June 1, 2015). The issue is whether the Town of Shrewsbury (Town or Employer) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by discontinuing the practice of converting vacation leave to sick leave when firefighters fell ill during their vacations and provided a doctor’s note verifying the illness without giving the Shrewsbury Firefighters Association, Local 4613, I.A.F.F. (Union) prior notice and an opportunity to bargain in resolution or impasse. For the reasons explained below, I find that the Town violated the Law as alleged.
Service Employees International Union, Local 888 and Town of Winchester, MUP-13-3289 (June 1, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the Town of Winchester (Employer or Town) violated Section 10(a)(5) and derivatively, 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) by failing to bargain over the impacts of unilaterally creating and filling a Service Employees International Union, Local 888 (SEIU or Union) bargaining unit position by creating and filling the Principal Clerk II (PC II) bargaining unit position without providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over impacts of that decision on terms and conditions of employment.
ARB-14-3558 Award file size 1MB
Town of Barnstable and AFSCME Council 93, AFL-CIO, Arbitration Award (June 5, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the Town of Barnstable had just cause to terminate Russell Moore?
The Town tried on five occasions, over thirteen months, and two winter seasons to impress upon Moore that he was an essential employee, who was required to work above and beyond his normal hours in response to snow and ice events. Moore decided that he no longer wished to perform this essential function of his position and stopped answering his phone. The Town’s termination was for just cause.
PS-13-3078 Ruling on Motion by City of Springfield for Cerrtification of Collective Bargaining Process
Springfield Public Health Nurses Association and City of Springfield, PS-13-3078 Ruling on Motion (June 15, 2015). The City of Springfield (City) filed with the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) is Motion for Certification of Collective Bargaining Process. For the reasons in the Ruling, the DLR granted the Motion , as it was found that the collective bargaining process, including mediation and fact-finding had been completed as required by Section 9 of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E
MUP-13-3006 HO Decision file size 1MB
New England Police Benevolent Association and City of Everett, MUP-13-3006 Hearing Officer Decision (June 16, 2015) The issues are whether the City of Everett (City or Employer) violated Section 10(a)(5) and derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c.150E (the Law) by: (1) reducing the number of police captains employed by the City through attrition without first giving the New England Police Benevolent Association (Union or NEPBA) prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the method to achieve a reduction in force, and the impacts of that decision; and (2) by assigning police lieutenants to perform the duties of the unfilled captain position without giving NEPBA prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over that decision and its impacts on employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
Town of Mashpee and Massachusetts Laborers’ District Council, ARB-14-3827 Arbitration Award (June 17, 2015) The issue in this case is: Did the Town of Mashpee have just cause to impose a three-day suspension on Charles Maintanis?
Both state law and regulation permitted Maintanis, as the Local Building Inspector, to execute Certificates of Inspection. Also, the Town did not show that Maintanis executed the Certificates of Inspection with an attempt to willfully deceive anyone. He never told anyone he was the Building Commissioner, and he was honest in his responses, when questioned by the Town Manager. Finally, the Town failed to produce any evidence, beyond the Town Manager’s speculation, that Maintanis’ signature had any effect on the hiring process for the vacant Municipal Building Commissioner position. Thus, the Town did not have just cause to suspend Maintanis.
MUP-14-3514 HO Decision file size 2MB
City of Boston and Salaried Employees of North America, Local 9158, MUP-14-3514, Hearing Officer Decision and Order (June 18, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the City of Boston violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L.c. 150E by unilaterally transferring bargaining unit work to non-unit personnel. The hearing officer found that the City violated the Law as alleged by transferring certain duties previously performed by a bargaining unit employee in a unit manager position to an exempt employee in an assistant director of program coordination position without giving the Salaried Employees of North America, Local 9158, prior notice and an opportunity to bargain about the decision and the impact of the decision on employees’ terms and conditions of employment. To remedy the unlawful action, the City of Boston is ordered to return the work at issue to the bargaining unit, make whole any employee who suffered an economic loss as a result of the City’s action, and post an appropriate notice.
City of Medford and Medford Firefighters Union, Local 1032, CERB Decision (June 29, 2015). The CERB affirmed a Hearing Officer’s decision holding that the City violated Section 10(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E (the Law) when the City’s fire chief issued written reprimands to the union president and a bargaining unit member for engaging in protected concerted activities. The chief issued written reprimands to both employees for “circumventing” the grievance procedure by meeting with the mayor’s designate at step 2 of the contractual grievance procedure before meeting with the chief at step 1 to discuss a medical questionnaire the chief had asked the bargaining unit member’s doctor to complete before the chief would allow the bargaining unit member to return to work from a non-work related injury. The CERB rejected the City’s argument that the meeting was not protected concerted activity because it occurred outside the grievance procedure and because it concerned fitness-for-duty issues. The CERB also rejected the Union’s cross-appeal that the Hearing Officer improperly declined to consider its argument that the City committed an independent Section 10(a)(1) violation.
City of Springfield and AFSCME Council 93, MUP-12-2466, CERB Decision on Appeal of Hearing Officer Decision (June 30, 2015). The CERB affirmed a Hearing Officer decision holding that the City of Springfield violated M.G.L. c. 150E, §10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) by installing GPS devices in vehicles driven by Department of Public Works employees without first giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. The GPS devices enabled supervisors to remotely monitor the drivers’ “real-time” work location, idle time, speed, distance driven and number of stops made. Supervisors previously obtained information about a drivers’ location and movements on an informal basis, either by asking drivers for it or by personal observation. The CERB concluded that the increased monitoring of, and information about, employee job performance and productivity affected employees’ underlying terms and conditions of employment. Thus, bargaining was required over whether to install the devices and whether and how it was going to use the increased data before installing them.