Category Archives: Labor In The News

Equal Pay For Men And Women Doing Comparable Work: A New Massachusetts Law Takes Effect

On July 1, 2018 a new comprehensive pay equity law took effect in Massachusetts that seeks to eradicate the wage disparities between women and men working in the Commonwealth. See Mass. Gen. Laws c. 149, § 105A, as amended by St. 2016, c. 177, § 2. The new law, which amended an earlier version passed in 1945, is a comprehensive attempt to bring women’s wages to the same level as men’s. According to recent statistics, the average full-time working woman in Massachusetts makes only 84.3 % of the average full-time working man. In addition to making it easier for employees to make claims for unequal pay based on gender, the law also makes it unlawful for employers to prevent their employees from talking about their pay, and prohibits employers from asking about your pay history when you apply for a job.

To understand the background of this significant change in the law, it is necessary to go back to 1945, when Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to enact a law prohibiting employers from paying men and women differently for comparable work. St. 1945, c. 584, § 3. The only exception provided in the law was for pay differences based on seniority. In 1963, the federal government passed a narrower version of the law, which required equal pay for men and women, but only if they were doing equal work, that is, work that required “equal skill, effort, and responsibility” and was “performed under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 206(d). The federal law had four exceptions: (1) seniority; (2) merit; (3) quantity or quality of production; or (4) “any other factor other than sex.”

After 1963, inquiring minds wanted to know: What’s the difference between the federal law (equal pay for equal work) and the earlier Massachusetts law (equal pay for comparable work)? In the 1990s, a group of food service workers in the Everett Public Schools, with the support of a union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, decided to find out what “comparable” really meant. The food service workers, who were all women, claimed that they performed work that was comparable to the school janitors, who were all men, but were paid less. After a lengthy trial, a Superior Court judge found in favor of the food service workers. Applying the four-part test of the federal law, the judge found that the food service workers and the janitors performed work that required comparable skill, effort, responsibility and was performed under comparable working conditions. The judge ordered the employer to pay the food service workers the same as the janitors.

The School Committee appealed the decision to the Supreme Judicial Court, which reversed the lower court. The SJC in 1995 (and again in 1998) ruled that the judge had applied the wrong legal standard to the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. See Jancey v. School Committee of Everett, 421 Mass. 482 (1995) and Jancey v. School Committee of Everett, 427 Mass. 603 (1998). According to the SJC, after applying the four-part test of the federal law, the judge should have applied a fifth test: Were the job duties of the positions being compared similar enough to make comparison practical? Janitors and food service workers have very different job duties, the SJC found, and the law was not intended to compare different types of jobs in this way.

Supporters of equal pay drafted legislation to overturn the result in Jancey, but it wasn’t until 2014 that their efforts came to fruition with the passage of An Act to Establish Pay Equity, which took effect at the beginning of this month. The law retains the standard of equal pay for comparable work, but it defines the standard in a way that removes the fifth test set out in Jancey and effectively overrules that case.

Under the new version of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), nearly every employer in Massachusetts (except certain domestic and agricultural workers, and federal employees) must pay men and women the same in all aspects of wages and benefits if their jobs require comparable skill, effort and responsibility, and are performed under similar working conditions. There is no requirement that the difference in pay be intentional or the result of discriminatory animus; this is a strict liability standard. An aggrieved employee may file a complaint with the Attorney General or may go directly into Superior Court to challenge a violation of the law. The employee does not need to file a discrimination complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to challenge an equal pay violation. If the employee succeeds in proving a violation of the law, she is entitled to: (1) the difference in pay going back a maximum of three years; (2) an equal amount in liquidated damages; and (3) reasonable attorneys fees and costs. A complaint must be filed within three years of an employer’s action creating the pay discrepancy or within three years of the employee’s most recent paycheck. NOTE: The employer cannot eliminate gender-based differences in pay by reducing anyone’s pay.

While the new law gives MEPA new life after the Jancey case effectively killed it, it also gives employers new defenses that didn’t exist in the previous law. For example, a difference in pay between men and women does not violate MEPA if it is made pursuant to any of the following reasons:

  1. a seniority system (but employee seniority can’t be affected by pregnancy or family and medical leave);
  2. a merit system;
  3. a system that rewards quality or quantity of production;
  4. the geographic location of the work (if based on legitimate regional differences);
  5. education, training or experience (if reasonably related to the job); or
  6. travel (if travel is a regular and necessary aspect of the job; commuting not included).

There is also an affirmative defense in the law for employers, who can successfully oppose a MEPA claim if they can show:

  1. They conducted a good faith, reasonable self-evaluation of their pay practices;
  2. The evaluation is reasonable in detail and scope;
  3. The evaluation was conducted within three years prior to the filing of the complaint; and
  4. The employer can show reasonable progress towards eliminating any gender-based wage differentials revealed by the evaluation.

In addition to toughening up MEPA, the new law also includes provisions regarding employee and employer discussions of pay and pay history. The law requires employers to allow their employees to discuss their pay with co-workers, or anyone else, for that matter. (The idea here is that allowing employers to gag their employees allows the perpetuation of discriminatory pay practices.) At the same time, the law prohibits employers from disclosing employee pay and salary information to others unless (1) the employee affirmatively consents or (2) the information is a public record, as with public employees.

Furthermore, the law attempts to cut down on the perpetuation of discriminatory practices by prohibiting employers from asking prospective employees about their past salary or salary history. There are exceptions here too:

  1. the employer can confirm prior wage history with former employers if the prospective employee voluntarily provides information about prior pay;
  2. the employer can ask a prospective employee his or her salary expectations for the new position, as long as it doesn’t ask where the expectation came from; and
  3. the employer can ask for prior pay information once it has made a job offer with a compensation package.

For more detailed information about the new law, see the Attorney General’s Overview and Frequently Asked Questions.

The passage of the new, improved MEPA proves that where there is significant opposition to a court interpretation of a law, the legislative process, while sometimes slow, can act to amend the law and effectively overrule the court. Although the neutrality of the court system and its ability to interpret the laws remain intact, the democratically-elected representatives of the people get the last word.

Supreme Court’s Janus Decision: What Does It Mean?

On June 27, 2018, the US Supreme Court issued its long expected decision in the case of Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31. By a 5-4 majority, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a union representing public employees (federal, state, or municipal) to require its members to pay anything to their union, even though, in most states, that union still has a duty to represent them. If it seems odd for the Supreme Court to rule that unions, private organizations funded by workers’ dues, should have to provide free services to fellow workers who choose not to pay dues, welcome to the current political landscape. But, first, how does the case affect unions now?

Janus has no effect on unions representing private employees. It deals only with public employee unions, such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, municipal and state workers.

If you are a union member, you continue being a member. There is no direct effect on you.

The immediate impact is: there is no more required agency service fee. What, you may ask, is an agency service fee?

In certain states with public sector collective bargaining laws, such as Massachusetts (governed by Chapter 150E), when a union is chosen by a group of workers to represent them for collective bargaining purposes, that union is obligated to represent all of the employees in that particular group. The group represented by the union is called a bargaining unit. For example, when the police in, say, Lynn, voted to be represented by the Lynn Police Association, that Association (for our purposes, “Association” and “Union” are the same thing) became the “exclusive collective bargaining representative” of the bargaining unit of all of the police in Lynn. Under Chapter 150E, that Association became legally obligated to represent all of the Lynn police, because they are all part of its bargaining unit.

Under preexisting law, public employees could not be compelled to join a union, even when that union has a duty to represent them. However, in Massachusetts and other states with fully developed labor laws, bargaining unit employees who did not want to join their union could be required to pay their fair, proportionate share of the union’s cost of representing them. As members of the bargaining unit, agency fee payers receive the same wages and contractual benefits as union members. Their grievances had to be processed the same as members’ grievances. This “fair share” payment is an agency service fee.

Generally, the amount of the agency service fee was somewhere around 80-85% of the union dues. Not being union members, employees who paid agency service fees could not run for union office, serve in any union position, or have any say in how their unions were run. They also received considerably fewer services than union members, but more about this below. Suffice it to say that, in Massachusetts, not many workers opted to be agency fee payers and, among public safety unions, they were virtually non-existent.

The Janus decision says members of a bargaining unit who refuse to join their union can no longer be required to pay an agency service fee. In fact, they cannot be required to pay anything. Yet their union, under existing Mass. law, still has a duty to represent them in the areas where the union serves as the exclusive collective bargaining representative. Those areas are contract negotiations and grievance processing.

While the case was supposedly decided on First Amendment (“free speech”) grounds, anyone who thinks it a product of refined legal reasoning and scholarship should consider applying to Trump University. The decision is designed to cripple public sector unions, who provide both funds and foot soldiers for causes which ultra-conservative billionaires like the Koch Brothers oppose. We need only look at the 62-38 trouncing of the charter school referendum in the 2016 Mass. election. Only the human and economic resources of teacher and other unions (both public and private sector) succeeded in countering the tens of millions of dollars the charter school proponents pumped into the campaign. These ultra-rich also don’t particularly enjoy paying taxes so that police officers, fire fighters, teachers, and other public workers can lead decent lives with decent benefits and retire on livable pensions. In short, Janus is only superficially about free speech; what it’s really about is breaking unions.

While quitting your union and letting your co-workers’ dues pay for the cost of negotiating your contract and handling your grievances may be an option for some, there are significant downsides to this approach. In many unions, particularly public safety, union members receive significant benefits outside of the contract which are not provided to non-members. Unions represent their members in civil service, retirement, unemployment, and other areas where non-members receive no services. For police officers, in particular, unions provide legal representation at critical incidents and defend their members in civil and criminal cases arising out of their employment. Union members also receive representation in both departmental (“internal affairs”) and external (state and/or federal) investigations. Since these services are provided outside of the collective bargaining agreement, non-members receive none of them. Teachers in Massachusetts who are wrongly terminated can appeal only through an individual arbitration process. The union will fight to get its members their jobs back; non-members can either represent themselves or mortgage their homes to hire their own counsel.

Besides these specific and practical reasons, public workers, at least in Massachusetts, need only look at the benefits they have gained through collective bargaining. During this past year, we have seen teachers in states without union bargaining rights (West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky) marching on their state capitals to achieve even the most modest wage and benefit improvements. While public employees in Mass. have not gotten rich, they have at least been able, for the most part, to be able to lead decent lives, raise and support their families, and retire with some modicum of financial security.

You can anticipate that anti-union groups will conduct a negative campaign to try and convince you to abandon your union and stop paying dues. Groups like the NRTW (National Right to Work) organization, (an oxymoron if ever there was one) will undoubtedly conduct a campaign. They will likely start with the teachers, but all other public employee unions will come next. Members who want to abandon their union must, in Massachusetts, provide at least 60 days’ notice of cancellation. This will provide you and others from your union an opportunity to educate your colleague. The message is very simple: Your union is only as strong as its members; working together we can make our lives better and have some say in our destiny.

Not too long ago, when you bought a house, you got a 30 year mortgage. You paid the same amount every month and, over time, you gained some equity. If you stayed in the house, eventually you paid it off and not only had a place to live but also something to pass on to your children. Then, about 20 years ago, some Wall Street sharpies got a lot of people to refinance or buy new houses. For the first few years, there were very low monthly payments on artificially low interest rates with no payments of principal. The sharpies made a lot of money creating and selling complex financial instruments with these mortgages. If your house went up in value and you sold it, it was a great deal. But in 2008 and 2009, when you couldn’t sell your house, all of a sudden the principal payments and higher interest rates kicked in and the monthly payments were crushing. A lot of people lost their homes.

This is what Janus is all about. On the surface, getting some of the benefits without paying anything looks great. But, over the long haul, you’re just being taken for a sucker. Let’s not get fooled again.

Massachusetts Coalition Of Police 2018 Basics Training Seminar (for MASSCOP Local Officials & Members)

Sandulli Grace and the Massachusetts Coalition of Police are pleased to announce our second year of training sessions for MassCOP members.

MassCOP believes in empowering its local unions through education to create a stronger, safer environment for its members. This training will give you tools to enforce your rights and improve your members’ working conditions.

Our 2017 “basics” training sessions were extremely popular, especially with newly elected union leaders looking for guidance on the rights and responsibilities of union officials. We understand that union leadership changes rapidly, and so we will offer two more basics trainings in 2018. The first one will be on Thursday, June 28, 2018 from 11:00 to 3:00 at the Stockbridge Police Department. We invite all MassCOP members. We hope the location of this training will enable many of MassCOP’s western Massachusetts locals to attend.

Our second 2018 “basics” training will take place in November 2018, in Middlesex County (date to be announced).

We will also offer an advanced training in October 2018, which will address the following topics in depth: retirement options, disability, management rights, just cause, grievance v. ULPs, health insurance, and dispatch basics. This will be a full-day training at the Sheraton Framingham (date to be announced).

We hope that the availability of additional dates and different locations will help more members attend. Please see the attached flyer for registration for the June 28, 2018 Stockbridge training.

Sincerely,
The Massachusetts Coalition of Police and Sandulli Grace, P.C.

attached flyer for registration

Massachusetts Coalition Of Police 2018 Basics Training Seminar (for MASSCOP Local Officials & Members)

Sandulli Grace and the Massachusetts Coalition of Police are pleased to announce our second year of training sessions for MassCOP members.

MassCOP believes in empowering its local unions through education to create a stronger, safer environment for its members. This training will give you tools to enforce your rights and improve your members’ working conditions.

Our 2017 “basics” training sessions were extremely popular, especially with newly elected union leaders looking for guidance on the rights and responsibilities of union officials. We understand that union leadership changes rapidly, and so we will offer two more basics trainings in 2018. The first one will be on Thursday, June 28, 2018 from 11:00 to 3:00 at the Stockbridge Police Department. We invite all MassCOP members. We hope the location of this training will enable many of MassCOP’s western Massachusetts locals to attend.

Our second 2018 “basics” training will take place in November 2018, in Middlesex County (date to be announced).

We will also offer an advanced training in October 2018, which will address the following topics in depth: retirement options, disability, management rights, just cause, grievance v. ULPs, health insurance, and dispatch basics. This will be a full-day training at the Sheraton Framingham (date to be announced).

We hope that the availability of additional dates and different locations will help more members attend. Please see the attached flyer for registration for the June 28, 2018 Stockbridge training.

Sincerely,
The Massachusetts Coalition of Police and Sandulli Grace, P.C.

attached flyer for registration

The At-Will Employment Rule Is The Disease And Unions Are The Cure

Imagine this scenario: You have a pretty good job in the private sector. You’ve been working there a while and have been making fairly good money. You have received good reviews and haven’t been disciplined. One day, your boss walks in and says, “You’re fired.” When you ask, “Why?”, your boss says, “No reason.” For the vast majority of employees in the United States today, this scenario – while perhaps unlikely – is perfectly legal.

The dirty little secret of the American workplace is the at-will employment rule, which governs the majority of non-government jobs (and a fair number of public sector jobs as well). According to this rule, an at-will employee can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all.

I can hear the protests from employers: if I fired someone for no reason, they’ll sue me. Yes, maybe. But would they win? Unless there are special circumstances (see discussion below), in many cases, the employer would win. What is your legal claim? What law did your employer violate? There is a very good chance that the termination of your employment didn’t violate any laws at all.

Are there exceptions to the at-will employment rule? Yes. The first and best exception is for union employees. Nearly every union contract contains two provisions that take the at-will employment rule and throw it out with the trash: first, a provision stating that employees may only be discharged for just cause, and second, a grievance-arbitration procedure providing that a neutral third party decides whether the employer had just cause to fire you. Not only do these contractual provisions establish a valuable set of workers’ rights, they also avoid the need to sue your employer. Instead of sending individual employees to sue in court, the collective bargaining agreement provides an in-house mechanism that is (usually) cheaper and quicker than litigation for determining whether your termination was just or unjust.

What about negotiating a better deal on your own? A few select high-powered employees with special skills have the clout to negotiate individual employment contracts, and most of those contracts include just cause protection. But the vast majority of non-union workers don’t have many options to fight arbitrary employer behavior, and most of those choices involve getting a lawyer and going to court – an expensive and time-consuming process in a judicial system that is increasingly unfriendly to the underdogs of society.

In rare cases, the requirement of just cause for termination has been adopted through legislation. If you live in Montana or Puerto Rico, you are in luck – those jurisdictions have laws requiring employers to have just cause for firing an employee. In other states, the courts have constructed various exceptions to the at-will rule in limited situations. There is a public policy exception, which has been adopted by the majority of states, including Massachusetts. According to the public policy exception, an employer cannot fire an employee when the termination would violate a well-defined and explicit public policy. This exception has been applied to cases in which employees were discharged for filing workers’ compensation claims, serving on juries or refusing to commit perjury for the employer. There is the implied contract exception, which all but 12 states have adopted. Under this exception, courts have found that statements made to employees by employers, usually in job handbooks and other writings, may create a promise that the employee will only be fired for good cause. Such documents may also bind the employer to follow certain procedures before firing an employee. The most far-reaching and least common exception is the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which has been adopted by Massachusetts and 10 other states. According to this doctrine, an employer must act in good faith in making employment decisions. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prohibits an employer from firing an employee for a bad reason – such as to avoid paying the employee a commission – but does not go so far as to require the employer to have a good reason for firing someone.

But what about all the laws out there protecting workers from unfair treatment, you might ask. Yes, but. Each of these laws has a very specific target and procedure, and courts and government agencies have in some cases created significant hurdles to winning a claim. So, for example, if you are fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on your employer’s illegal or unsafe actions, you may be protected. If you are fired in retaliation for exercising your rights under some other statute (such as filing a discrimination complaint or trying to organize a union), you may be protected. If you are fired because of your race, sex, ethnicity, religion, age, disability (or perceived disability), sexual orientation, veteran’s status or other specific category, you may be protected. But ask any employment lawyer whether it is easy it is to win a discrimination lawsuit: even in cases where there seems to be blatant bias, complicated legal rules can keep justice out of reach or delay the outcome for years.

So, yes, there are many different ways the law protects workers from unfair treatment, but most of these statutes and common law exceptions to the at-will employment rule do not address the scenario set out at the beginning of this article. Let’s say the boss is telling the truth when he or she says, “I don’t have a reason” and can prove it in court. Unlikely? Perhaps. Even the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing – if you’re lucky enough to be in a state that has adopted it, like Massachusetts – may not be enough to protect you. And what if the boss does have a reason that has nothing to do with any of the protected categories set out above? It doesn’t have to be a good reason, as long as there is no evidence of bad faith. Your performance isn’t up to snuff, or you’ve broken a company rule. You and the boss are having a personality conflict. Or maybe you’re just not on the A Team, not among the boss’s favorites. None of these reasons, on its face, is illegal, at least in most jurisdictions. If you don’t have a union to protect you, you may be out of luck. Unless, of course, you live in Montana.

Federal Labor Board Reverses Browning-Ferris Joint-Employer Standard

On December 14, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board reversed the Browning-Ferris joint-employer policy established in 2015, marking the first of many significant policy changes that are expected from the Board over the next few years. Newly minted Board members Marvin Kaplan and William Emmanuel, whose appointments by President Trump gave the Board its first Republican majority since 2007, joined with Chairman Philip Miscimarra in issuing the opinion in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, LTD. And Brandt Construction Co. (Case No. 25-CA-163189).

The 2015 Browning-Ferris decision revised the standard by which the Board finds two companies to be “joint-employers” of employees that performed work for both companies. Traditionally, whether or not an “employer-employee” relationship exists turns on how much control an employer has over its workers. Where there are multiple employers directing or controlling the same workers, determining whether an employment relationship exists between the parties becomes more difficult. For example, if McDowell’s, Inc. owns a fast-food restaurant chain but contracts with a local company that controls the day-to-day operations of a particular restaurant, it might not be immediately clear if either company is the direct employer of the people who work there, or if both companies are joint-employers. Therefore, only one of the companies may be required to bargain with a union or employee representative.

Prior to Browning-Ferris, for two companies to be considered joint-employers, each would have to possess and exercise authority in controlling employees’ terms and conditions of employment. In Browning-Ferris, the Board removed the exercise requirement, bringing companies that simply possessed control over terms and conditions of employment to the table to bargain with the union over those terms and conditions, even if they did not exercise that control “directly and immediately.”
Thursday’s ruling in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors revived the old rule, reinstating the requirements that an employer must both possess and exercise control to be considered a joint-employer, and that the control must be “direct and immediate.” The Board called the Browning-Ferris standard a “distortion of common law” and “ill-advised as a matter of policy.” The Board argued that the definition of a joint-employer was “confused” and that it produced “wide-ranging instability in bargaining relationships.”
In their dissent, Board members Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran harshly criticized the reasoning and result of their colleagues’ decision. They first took issue with the “indefensible” process carried out by the Board in arriving at its decision, arguing that the Board disregarded “basic principles of reasoned decisionmaking” and “longstanding Agency norms in favor of public participation.” They called the Board’s “unwillingness to let the parties and the public participate” in the fact-finding process “particularly curious,” referring to the Board’s abandonment of the usual practice of soliciting briefs from the parties and the public prior to overturning a significant policy decision. “It is reasonable to infer,” they wrote, “that our colleagues do not want to engage the public for fear of what they might learn – namely, that none of the predicted effects of [Browning-Ferris] have actually come to pass.”

The dissenting members further opined that the decision demonstrated “a willful misunderstanding of the joint-employer standard,” and that it “violates the explicit policy of the National Labor Relations Act: to ‘encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.’” It is clear that this decision, by design, will lead to fewer parties at the bargaining table.

Chairman Miscimarra’s term expired on Saturday, December 16, leaving the Board ideologically split 2-2. President Trump has not yet nominated a candidate for his replacement.
You can read the Hy-Brand decision here, and the Browning-Ferris decision here.

BPPA Wins at SJC: Court Upholds Arbitration Award Reinstating Boston Police Officer

Arbitrator Found That Officer David Williams Did Not Use Excessive Force During Arrest

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has ruled in favor of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association (“BPPA”) and against the City of Boston in a major case that tested the limits of the non-delegable management rights doctrine. In City of Boston v. BPPA, which was decided by a unanimous court on July 12, 2017 (Hines, J. writing the opinion), the SJC affirmed a labor arbitrator’s award ordering the City to reinstate wrongly discharged Boston Police Officer David Williams. The City appealed to the SJC after a Superior Court judge affirmed the arbitrator’s award. Attorney Alan H. Shapiro, a partner with Sandulli Grace, P.C., represented the BPPA in the arbitration and court proceedings with the assistance of Sandulli Grace attorney John M. Becker.

The case began in the early morning hours of March 16, 2009 when Officer Williams and another Boston Police Officer reported to the North End for a traffic dispute. When a St. Patrick’s Day reveler became unruly and refused to leave the street, the other officer attempted to arrest him, but the man began to fight back and resist. Officer Williams came to the assistance of his fellow officer and subdued the unruly gentleman while the man’s two friends attempted to interfere. An initial perfunctory investigation by the Boston Police Department (“BPD”) into the incident did not reach any conclusions, but after the man filed a lawsuit, the BPD resumed investigating, placed Officer Williams on administrative leave in 2011 and eventually concluded that he had used excessive force during the arrest and had been untruthful about his actions. The BPD discharged Officer Williams in January 2012, almost three years after the incident.

The BPPA grieved the discharge under the collective bargaining agreement with the City, in which the parties have agreed that the BPD must have just cause to discharge a police officer and that the ultimate decision on whether the BPD has just cause is for a neutral arbitrator selected by mutual agreement of the City and BPPA. The BPPA argued that Officer Williams used appropriate force under the circumstances and was truthful in reporting his actions. After three days of hearing, the arbitrator rejected the City’s position that Officer Williams had used excessive force, finding instead that Williams had used appropriate force during the arrest and was truthful about his actions during the investigation. The arbitrator also found that the investigation was excessively lengthy and included arbitrary delays. He ordered the City to reinstate Officer Williams with full back pay and benefits, including back detail and overtime pay for the excessively long administrative leave.

The City appealed the arbitrator’s decision to Superior Court and then, after losing there, to the Supreme Judicial Court. The City argued that the non-delegable management rights doctrine, as embodied in the law known as the Commissioner’s Statute, prohibited arbitrators from contradicting the Boston Police Commissioner’s determination that an officer had used excessive force. In effect, the City argued that discipline and discharge were not subject to collective bargaining and that an arbitrator could not decide whether the City had just cause to discharge Officer Williams. The SJC was not willing to extend the management rights doctrine into the “core matters of discipline and discharge”, standards for which have always been subject to collective bargaining.

In reaching its conclusion, the SJC relied in part on a 1998 amendment to G.L. c. 150E, § 7(d), the law that enumerates which laws and regulations are superseded by collective bargaining agreements in the event of a conflict. The 1998 amendment, which was sponsored and supported by the BPPA, with the assistance of attorneys from Sandulli Grace, added the regulations of police commissioners to the list. The SJC found that this amendment gave arbitrators the right to interpret regulations promulgated by the Boston Police Commissioner pursuant to the Commissioner’s Statute and further found that where the arbitrator’s interpretation conflicted with the Commissioner’s, the arbitrator’s must prevail.

The SJC also took the opportunity to criticize the BPD for its handling of the investigation, noting that both the accused police officer and the public were disserved by the mishandling of the case and the lengthy delays in the investigation.

Sandulli Grace congratulates Officer Williams and his family on this victory and also the BPPA and its President, Pat Rose, who have supported Officer Williams throughout this long ordeal.

Why Can’t The Boston Teachers Get A New Contract?

Last week, I was talking with a business agent for a large public sector union which represents thousands of employees in the City of Boston. When our conversation turned to city negotiations, I asked why the Boston teachers couldn’t get a new contract, since the mayor had already settled with the firefighters and police officers (represented by the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association with the expert legal guidance of my colleague Susan Horwitz). He said that it had something to do with the teachers’ union protecting the jobs of 100 teachers who were in some kind of “rubber room.” Since I knew the “rubber room” refers to a place where New York City dumped lots of teachers awaiting disciplinary hearings for accusations of serious misconduct, I could only conclude that the union must be trying to protect problem teachers. Wanting to find out what is really going on, through a mutual friend, I went straight to the source. Below is a detailed explanation from Richard Stutman, President of the Boston Teachers Union. The bottom line is: the City wants to be able to get rid of many, perhaps 100, perfectly good teachers, many of whom have been rated as not just adequate, but exceptional teachers. Instead, they would rather hire those who are younger, cheaper, and less experienced. All unions, union members, and people who care about maintaining a system where qualified professionals can make a career in public service without fear of being cast aside for no reason, need to support the BTU’s fight for justice for all of its members. Below is a detailed explanation from President Stutman:

-Alan Shapiro

Each year in the Boston Public Schools we have school closings, programmatic readjustments (e.g., a school needs one fewer English Language Arts teacher, two more math teachers, and so on), a school (or two or three) converting to “Turnaround” status (a provision under state law which allows (in some cases, mandates) large staff turnover at a school, regardless of individual teacher competence), or other events, all of which ‘excess’ or push out a teacher or a group of teachers and thrust them into the land of the unassigned. This year we had one school closing, two schools forced into Turnaround status, and another school that underwent a status change (Level 5 to Level 5+) – altogether 150 teachers excessed from these four schools alone. At different changes in a school’s status, no less than 50% of the staff have to leave the school; at yearly intervals staff turnovers of up to 100% can occur. What does this mean?

Simply, because of these school status changes, we have perhaps hundreds of people forced to vacate schools each year – not because of individual performance or anything related to individual conduct or discipline – but because the school is undergoing a transformation ordered by the state or federal government.

So these teachers get ‘excessed’ and in a few cases, schools can take some of them back, either after or without an application process. In the vast majority of cases, those excessed become unassigned teachers looking for a permanent placement. This year there are 350 excessed teachers currently without an assignment. Regardless of how they got into this status, they are, as measured on the performance scale , similar to all other teachers in the system – no better, no worse.

A little background on the current group of 350 unassigned teachers. They were noticed in February and have from February to September to apply for a position. Most diligently apply for placement where there is a suitable position in their field.

Some have no place to apply. They may, for example, be in an ‘exotic’ field, teaching a subject that is not widely taught. Or they may teach a not-so-exotic field, but in a grade level where that subject is not needed. While most of the 350 will predictably find a position by September, some will not, and they’ll become “SPC’s” or people who will be assigned to a “Suitable Professional Capacity” on the first day of school.

People assigned to an SPC role get full pay and benefits and remain eligible to seek and accept any posting that opens up in the school system. While unassigned to a ‘real’ position, they work in a school in a variety of capacities: as a second teacher, teacher’s helper, paraprofessional, small group instructor, or in a similar support role. This year there are around 45 SPC’s. Next year, given the inevitable whittling down of the 350 unassigned now, there will be another 50 to 75 SPC’s (but we cannot be sure how many) added to the group of current 45 SPC’s. Let’s assume there will be 100 or so SPC’s next year, as some of the current SPC’s will undoubtedly resign, retire, or naturally find a position.

Here, then, is the issue:

Given the above, there is a steady, though fluctuating, core of 50 to 100 SPC’s, who remain in that status each year, costing the district annually $5 to $10M. This year, 2/3 of these teachers have been rated proficient or exemplary. Some have been SPC’s for a few years, some for a year. To a person, they want to get out of the status, obtain a ‘real’ position, and get on with their careers. But they are not guaranteed placement as principals retain the right to say ‘no’ to any particular applicant.

Some of the SPC’s apply to many schools looking for virtually anything, others are more selective. Unless an SPC finds a school and is accepted there, s/he remains in this status without a time limit.

Why aren’t these folks laid off? Under the BTU contract each SPC is guaranteed this status (full pay and benefits) for years without limit. This guarantee is seniority-based and means that the SPC can continue in the status provided there is a person in the same subject area who is junior to the SPC, even if that junior person has a ‘real’ position. There is no time limit.

Under the state law, the SPC has a right, as well, to continue in the same status – notwithstanding the provisions of the BTU contract — provided a non-permanent or provisional employee is working in that subject area. This adds to their protection.

Bottom line: the SPC has a right to stay in that position indefinitely, even without a real spot to claim.

From our point of view, these SPCs should be working in productive, real positions. Each has been trained and vetted, each has been rigorously evaluated under a new state Performance Evaluation system that the district has agreed to, and each is in his/her predicament through no fault of his/her own. Each has undergone anywhere from 30 to hundreds of hours of yearly Professional Development. None of those in this capacity are there as a result of any disciplinary proceeding. This is no rubber room.

(There are teachers awaiting disciplinary proceedings, and this small group is sent home to await the disciplinary process. None of these is an SPC.)

From the school district’s point of view, a principal should have the right to hire any person s/he chooses and these excessed teachers (SPC’s) are never forced into a school. The normal teaching turnover is approximately 500 teaching positions per year. The existence of SPC’s adds another 50 to 100 positions that have to be filled. This year the department has hired 600 new teachers.

We’d like to see the district put the SPC’s to work at their full capacity as teachers in the fields in which they are fully trained and qualified, and save anywhere from $5-10M per year. The school district, hiding behind the ideology of “not-forcing-a-person-into-a-position,” has the cash to withstand the cost of paying the unnecessary $5-$10M in yearly costs. We’d like to see the money used elsewhere.

Final point, in a circular twist to all of this – if the school department could redistribute the $5 to $10M that is spent on this issue, it would allow schools to add back teaching positions and cut back on the programmatic excessing that helps create the SPC problem in the first place.

In negotiations, we seek to keep the SPC’s employed in productive capacity until a ‘real’ vacancy opens up. The school district wishes to put a time limit on each SPC’s status and have us waive their contractual and statutory rights to employment. If that were to happen, eventually, dozens or even hundreds of fully qualified, experienced teachers would end up unemployed, while the school district hires new, generally inexperienced, and much cheaper teachers (starting teachers make about 35% less than those at the top of the salary schedule) to replace them.

SJC Rules Workers’ Comp Benefits are Not Compensation for Services Rendered

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision today (May 16th, 2017) that will further protect workers who are injured on the job and ensure that they continue receiving their workers’ compensation benefits even if they are suspended. The SJC overturned the decision of the Superior Court and reinstated the original ruling from the Department of Industrial Accidents, granting a former Boston EMS worker his workers’ compensation benefits. The case was handled by John Becker, Of Counsel to Sandulli Grace, he received assistance from former Sandulli Grace Attorney Jamie Goodwin who argued the case below.

The plaintiff in the case, Brian Benoit, had been an EMT and paramedic with Boston EMS for almost 20 years when he injured his ankle while transporting a patient. Unable to work, he filed for and received workers’ compensation benefits for almost a year under the Massachusetts workers’ Compensation Statute. Mass. G. L. c. 152. Boston EMS halted his workers’ comp payments in August of 2012, arguing that injury was not accidental. Benoit seeking to have his benefits reinstated, filed a complaint at the DIA in October of 2012. Shortly thereafter Benoit was indicted in an unrelated matter, and Boston EMS promptly placed him on suspension in accordance with G. L. c. 268A § 25. Under G. L. c. 268A § 25 public employees are barred from receiving compensation while on suspension. In addition to their argument that the injury was not accidental, Boston EMS also argued that Benoit’s workers’ compensation benefits constituted compensation for services and were therefore not obligated to pay them under the statute. The DIA ruled that Boston EMS had impermissibly denied Benoit his rightful workers’ comp benefits and ordered that they be reinstated. Boston EMS refused to comply with the order and appealed the decision in Superior Court, Benoit also filed an action in Superior Court to inforce the decision of the DIA.

The Superior Court determined workers’ compensation payments constituted compensation and granted the Motion to Dismiss brought by Boston EMS, Benoit appealed that decision. After pleading guilty and subsequently resigning from Boston EMS, Benoit refiled an action in Superior Court alleging that since he was no longer suspended, the suspension statute should no longer apply. The Superior Court disagreed with him once again, stating that since he was suspended at the time of his resignation he was still considered to be suspended. Benoit consolidated both of his appeals and the SJC removed the case from the Appellate court. While the SJC denied Benoit’s first two claims, they agreed with him that the workers’ Compensation Statute was not proscribed by the suspension statute.

workers’ Compensation in Massachusetts was originally enacted in 1911, and the statutory scheme protects workers who are injured while on the job. It allows the injured party to remain financially stable while protecting the employer from prohibitively costly settlements and judgments. When an employee pursues a workers’ compensation claim, they forfeit their right to sue their employer for damages. The no-fault system creates certainty for all parties, the injured employee knows the benefits they will receive and the employer knows what they are liable for. The act also mandates that every employer obtain workers’ compensation insurance from an insurer who will make the payments or obtain licensing as a self-insurer. If the employer chooses a third-party insurer, that insurer will be the one to pay out the workers’ compensation benefits. However, if the employer chooses to be self-insured, as Boston EMS did, they will be liable for all workers compensation payments. Employees can also opt out of the system in order to retain their right to sue, but they must do so at their time of hire. An injured employee will receive medical costs and weekly payments based on salary for a period of time depending on the nature and seriousness of their injury. The SJC decided this case on whether those payments consisted of compensation for services rendered.

While the court acknowledged that compensation is usually interpreted broadly, they recognized the limitations in G. L. c. 268A § 1(a) which defines compensation as any money, thing of value or benefit conferred or given to a person in return for services rendered. The restriction of ‘in return for services rendered’ became the deciding factor in this case. The SJC determined that workers’ compensation benefits are not conferred upon an injured employee for services rendered but because the employee waives the right to sue in order to guarantee benefits when he or she is injured. They differentiated the workers’ compensation act from other forms of compensation such as sick pay and unemployment insurance. The SJC also differentiated workers compensation benefits as they were outside the purview of the employer-employee relationship and instead based on the relationship between the employee and the insurer. The court specifically discussed the differences between workers’ compensation benefits and unemployment benefits. Unlike workers’ comp, the employee is not required to give up either their rights or money to receive unemployment. Unemployment benefits serve as a recognition of the services the employee performed while working and are directly tied to the employer who fund the unemployment insurance mechanism.

This ruling provides substantial protections for workers who are hurt on the job. Employer’s and insurance companies will be barred from denying payments due to a suspension stemming from misconduct. Employees will have the peace of mind that even if they are suspended while they are out of work they are still entitled to receive their workers’ compensation benefits.

Read The Decision

FREE TRAINING for MASSCOP Local Officials and Members

FREE TRAINING
for MASSCOP Local Officials and Members

TUESDAY JUNE 13, 2017

Sponsored and run by MassCOP officials and attorneys from Sandulli Grace, P.C., this free session will train you on topics that matter to your members, including:

• How to draft and process contractual grievances
• Handling employee discipline issues
• Preparing for and engaging in contract negotiations
• Tackling stress in the workplace

MassCOP believes in empowering its local unions through education to create a stronger, safer environment for its members. This training will give you tools to enforce your rights and improve your members’ working conditions.

The first training session will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at the Southbridge Police Department, 1 Mechanic Street, Southbridge, MA, from 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Seating is limited, so please register by e-mailing GCapozzi@sandulligrace.com.

For more information, please visit our web sites:
www.sandulligrace.com
www.masscop.org

– LUNCH WILL BE SERVED –

Flyer for June 13 2017 Training Southbridge