ARB-15-4381 Award  pdf format of ARB-15-4381 Award

Town of Framingham and Massachusetts Laborers’ District Council, ARB-15-4381 Arbitration Award (October 19, 2015). The issue in this case is: Was there just cause for the termination?  If not, what shall be the remedy? 

The essence of the case involves a fifteen year employee with no disciplinary history, or a history of sick leave abuse, who called in sick and then worked at another job. The arbitrator was not convinced by the Town’s argument that one instance of inappropriate use of sick leave for an otherwise clean fifteen-year work history was worthy of termination.  Further, the Town erroneously concluded that the grievant sought to swap shifts on the day in question and that she called in sick when her swap request was denied.  A ten (10) day suspension balanced the need for meaningful discipline with an opportunity for the employee to correct her actions.

MUP-14-3623 H.O. Decision  pdf format of MUP-14-3623 H.O. Decision
file size 2MB

Collective Bargaining Relief Association and Plymouth School Committee, MUP-14-3623 Hearing Officer Decision (October 20, 2015).  The issue is whether the Plymouth School Committee (Employer) violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by increasing the job duties and workload of custodians, who work the night shift (night custodians) at Plymouth Community Intermediate School (PCIS) when it unilaterally required them to empty recycling bins.

MUP-14-3867 H.O Decision  pdf format of MUP-14-3867 H.O Decision

Franklin County Technical Regional School Committee and Franklin County Technical Teachers Association, MUP-14-3867 Hearing Officers Decision (October 9, 2015).  The issue is whether the Franklin County Technical Regional School Committee (School Committee or Employer), bargaining in bad faith when, following a grievance settlement, Superintendent James Laverty (Laverty) made a formal recommendation to the School Committee’s Finance Subcommittee to fund the settlement but allowed his subordinate to immediately make a non-funding recommendation, in violation of Section 10(a)(5) and derivatively Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law).  I find that the School Committee violated the Law in the manner alleged.

MUP-14-3961 H.O. Decision  pdf format of MUP-14-3961 H.O. Decision
file size 2MB

Lexington School Committee and Lexington Education Association MUP-14-3961 Hearing Officer Decision (October 19, 2105). The issue in this case is whether the Lexington School Committee (School Committee) violated Sections 10(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E (the Law) by retaliating against Julia Finley (Finley) for her protected, concerted activity.  Based on the record and for the reasons explained below, I conclude that the School Committee did not violate the Law as alleged.

SUP-13-2604 CERB Decision  pdf format of SUP-13-2604 CERB Decision
file size 1MB

Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Department of Corrections and Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, SUP-13-2604 Decision on Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision (October 19, 2015). The CERB affirmed a hearing officer decision holding that the Department of Correction did not unlawfully transfer the duties of the Assistant Assignment Officer outside of the bargaining unit represented by the MCOFU without first giving MCOFU prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse.  The facts showed that the DOC operated eighteen penal facilities throughout the Commonwealth.  The AAO’s duties were performed by both bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit members a number of these facilities, included the one where the alleged transfer occurred.  The CERB agreed with the Hearing Officer that the work was shared work.  It further agreed that there had been no calculated displacement of shared work.  MCOFU was unable to demonstrate that unit members performed an ascertainable percentage of the shared duties on a system-wide basis and that the employer significantly reduced a portion of that work along with a corresponding increase in the percentage of work performed by non-unit personnel.