Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and IBCO/NAGE, LOCAL 1-045, ARB-13-2859 Arbitration Award (March 5, 2015). The issues in this case are: Was there just cause to issue a written reprimand to Ms. Wardwell on April 4, 2013? Was there just cause to terminate Ms. Wardwell on April 24, 2013? If not what shall be the remedy?
April 4, 2013 Written Reprimand
Here, Wardwell admitted to making the imprudent statement and the unprofessional entry in the records for which she received the written reprimand. The FCSO response was appropriate and is supported by just cause.
April 24, 2013 Termination
Wardwell’s actions or lack thereof in the T.M. matter combined with her poor work performance both as the Kimball House Manager and as a case manager in Pod D support the FCSO’s decision to terminate her employment.
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and IBCO/NAGE, Local 1-045, ARB-13-2860 Arbitration Award (March 12, 2015). The issue in this case is: whether there was just cause to terminate the grievant on April 26, 2013 under the circumstances? If not what shall be the remedy?
An informant told the grievant that a weapon was hidden in Pod C. The grievant did not report this information to anyone and went home for the weekend, putting the well-being and safety of the inmates of Pod C and all the FCSO staff that entered Pod C over the weekend in grave danger. Based on the decisions that the grievant made in this matter, the FCSO justifiably no longer has confidence in her judgment. The grievance is denied.
City of Woburn and New England Police Benevolent Association, ARB-14-3599 Arbitration Award (March 25, 2015). The issue in this case is: Did the City of Woburn have just cause to suspend Officer Jerome Gately for four months? If not what shall the remedy be?
Chief Ferullo issued a written order on September 18, 2013, for Gately to stay away from three individuals, one of whom had been arrested on June 25, 2013. Based on Gately’s admissions that he consciously disregarded Chief Ferullo’s order because he disagreed with it, his decision to not follow the procedures of the Woburn Police Department’s Rules and Regulations, and his disciplinary history, I find that the City’s decision to suspend him for four-months is not excessive. The City does not have just cause, however, to demand an apology from Gately for his actions. I find the demand for an apology to be superfluous and not supported by just cause, as it does not further the corrective nature of the four-month suspension.
City of Newton and Newton Firefighters Association, I.A.F.F., LOCAL 863 MUP-12-2102 Hearing Officer Decision (March 16, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the City of Newton (City) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by failing to provide the Newton Firefighters Association, I.A.F.F., Local 863 (Union) with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse over the City’s decision to order firefighters on probation (FFOPs) to attain Firefighter I and II (FF I/II) certification as a condition of continued employment and the impacts of that decision on employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
City of Haverhill and Haverhill Firefighter Union, Local 1011, IAFF MUP-13-3066 Hearing Officer Decision (March 30, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the City of Haverhill (City) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by failing to bargain over the conditions under which members of the Haverhill Firefighters Union, Local 1011, IAFF (Union) must complete the Massachusetts Ethics Reform Law’s (G.L. c. 268A §28) mandatory online training requirements (Online Training Program).
City of Malden and AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO, MUP-13-3190 Hearing Officer Decision (March 5, 2015). The issue in this case is whether the City of Malden (City) failed to bargain in good faith by conducting two drug and alcohol tests during the third quarter of 2013 without giving the AFSCME, Council 93 (Union) an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse about the decision or its impacts on employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Based upon the City's Waiver of Hearing pursuant to 456 CMR 15.08, in which it admitted the allegations in the complaint, I conclude that the City violated Section 10(a)(5), and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law.
Town of Arlington and Arlington Police Patrolmen’s Association, MUP-14-3750 Hearing Officer Decision (March 18, 2015) The issue in this case is whether the Town of Arlington (Town) refused to bargain with the Arlington Police Patrolmen’s Association (Union or Association) over the Town’s proposed use of an assessment center as a criteria for promotion from the bargaining unit position of patrol officer to the non-bargaining unit position of sergeant in violation of Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c.150E (the Law).
University of Massachusetts (Amherst and Boston) and Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty Staff Union/MTA/NEA SCR-14-3451 CERB Representation Decision (March 20, 2015). The issue in this case was whether academic department heads and chairs (Department Heads) at the University of Massachusetts’ Amherst and Boston campuses should be included through an add-on election to the existing bargaining unit of faculty and librarians on the same campuses. Department Heads were originally included in the faculty unit that the CERB certified in 1976, but the parties agreed to exclude them shortly thereafter. After investigation, the CERB found that,m in several key areas, Department Heads exercised greater supervisory authority than they did in 1976 and concluded that their presence in the unit could lead to a conflict of interest. The CERB therefore dismissed the petition.