Leicester School Committee and International Union of Public Employees, ARB-14-4226 Hearing Officer Decision (May 1, 2015). The issues in this expedited arbitration are: Is the grievance arbitrable? Did the School Committee violate the layoff and recall provision of the collective bargaining agreement when it reduced the grievant’s hours? If so, what shall be the remedy?The grievance was not procedurally arbitrable because it was not filed within the contractual requirements for timely filing.
MUP-13-2797 HO Decision file size 1MB
Canton School Committee and Canton Teachers’ Association, MUP-13-2797 (May 6, 2015). The issue is whether the Canton School Committee (Committee) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by: 1) transferring bargaining unit work to non-unit personnel; and, 2) repudiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
SUP-12-2282-2283 H.O. Decision file size 2MB
Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Commissioner of Administration and Finance and Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union and Glennis Ogaldez, SUP-12-2282 and SUPL-12-2283 Hearing Officer Decision (May 7, 2015). The issues in these cases are case whether: a) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Commissioner of Administration (Employer), acting through the Department of Corrections (DOC), violated Section 10(a)(3), and, derivatively Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by retaliating against Glennis Ogaldez (Ogaldez); and b) the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU or Union) violated Section 10(b)(1) of the Law by interfering with, restraining and coercing Ogaldez in the exercise of her Section 2 rights. I find that MCOFU violated the Law in the manner alleged, but that the Employer did not violate the Law.
MUP-13-3085 CERB Decision file size 2MB
Somerset School Committee and Lorrie Pierce, MUP-10-3085 CERB Decision (May 21, 2015) The Somerset School Committed appealed a Hearing Officer decision holding that it violated Section 10(a)(4) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E by taking certain adverse actions against the charging party Lorrie Pierce (Pierce) in retaliation for her participating in a Department of Labor Relations (DLR) arbitration proceeding. As a preliminary matter, the CERB held that it did not have to decide Pierce’s employment status when the alleged retaliation took place because an alleged discriminatee does not need to be an employee under Section 1 of the Law to find a violation of Section 10(a)(4) of the Law. Regarding the substance of the charge, the CERB affirmed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that the School Committee retaliated against Pierce by adding a new job qualification on a posting for her former paraprofessional assignment that they knew that she did not possess. The CERB reversed the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that deleting the employee’s email account and removing her from a faculty list were adverse actions that could give rise to a Section 10(a)(4) violation because the facts did not support the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that these actions materially disadvantaged Pierce.
MUP-09-5623 CERB Decision file size 1MB
Springfield Organization of Library Employees and City of Springfield, MUP-09-5623 CERB Decision (May 29, 2015) This was an appeal of a Hearing Officer decision holding that the City of Springfield violated Sections 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by unilaterally reducing the hours of work and benefits of a part-time senior clerk position (Senior Clerk); and 2) engaging in direct dealing by hiring two employees and recalling a third employee into 18.5 hour, non-benefitted Senior Clerk positions. The Hearing Officer found that the City violated the Law by unilaterally reducing the hours of work and benefits of the part-time Senior Clerk position without first giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over the decision and the impacts of its decision. In so holding, the Hearing Officer rejected the City’s affirmative waiver by contract defense. He also found that the City had violated the Law by communicating directly with the employee recalled into the 18.5-hour title, but not by communicating directly with the new hires. The City filed an appeal arguing, among other thing that the Hearing Officer erred when it concluded that CBA did not give it the right to fill job vacancies formerly held by 20-hour employees with 18.5-hour employees and to pay them the contractual benefits associated with an 18.-5 hour position. The CERB agreed with the City and dismissed the complaint without reaching the other issues raised on appeal.