ARB-15-4237 Arbitration Award  pdf format of ARB-15-4237 Arbitration Award

City of Taunton and Massachusetts & Northern New England Laborer’s District Council, ARB-15-4237, Arbitration Award (November 4, 2015). The issue in this case is: Whether the City violated the collective bargaining agreement by not awarding Eric Corey the Water Treatment Plant Pond Caretaker position?  If so, what shall be the remedy? The combination of the City’s failure to acknowledge and/or consider Corey’s seniority and its failure to provide Corey with the promotional preference required by the collective bargaining agreement has irrevocably tainted the hiring procedure for the Water Treatment Plant Pond Caretaker position.  The City is ordered to re-interview the candidates in a manner consistent with this decision.

MUP-12-2131 CERB Decision Issued  pdf format of MUP-12-2131 CERB Decision Issued
file size 2MB

Thomas C Duffy and City of Worcester, MUP-12-2131, CERB Decision, November 30, 2015. The City appealed from a Hearing Officer decision holding that the City of Worcester retaliated against police officer Thomas Duffy for engaging in protected concerted activity in violation of Section 10(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c. 150E.  The CERB affirmed the decision in its entirety, concluding that the Hearing Officer drew reasonable inferences of unlawful motivation from the facts before and applied the correct legal analysis when concluding that, but for Duffy’s filing a grievance protesting the designation of his absence on Christmas Eve as a sick day, the City would not have suspended him.

MUP-15-4751, H.O. decision on Motion to Dismiss  pdf format of MUP-15-4751, H.O. decision on Motion to Dismiss

Chelsea School Committee and United Steelworkers, Local 9427, MUP-15-4751, Hearing Officer’s Ruling on Motion for Summary Decision November 12, 2015.  The issue before me is whether to allow the United Steelworkers, Local9427’s (Union) or the Chelsea School Committee’s (School Committee) motion for summary decision in the present case.  For the reasons discussed below, I grant the Union’s motion for summary decision and deny the School Committee’s cross-motion for summary decision.