Supreme Judicial Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Decision, Orders Lynn to Pay Union

In a unanimous decision issued January 6, 2010, the state’s highest court has ruled in favor of the Lynn Police Association, MCOP Local 302 (“union”) in a contractual dispute with the City of Lynn (“City”). As a result of the ruling, the City will have to pay union members $277,000 in back pay and benefits. The union was represented by John M. Becker of Sandulli Grace, P.C.

The dispute arose after the City came to the union during a 2003 fiscal crisis and asked for union members to make nearly $300,000 in concessions. Even though the union had an enforceable collective bargaining agreement and could have refused to give up any negotiated benefits, it agreed to make the concessions (and avoid threatened layoffs). The union, assisted by Susan F. Horwitz, of Sandulli Grace, P.C., only agreed to the concessions on the condition that, if the City obtained additional federal or state funds, those funds would be used to pay back the benefits that the union members had sacrificed.

Several months after the concession agreement took effect, the Lynn Police Department obtained a $277,000 community policing grant. When the union demanded that the funds be used to pay back the concessions according to their agreement, the City refused. The union filed a grievance, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator found that the grant triggered the agreement’s conditional language and ordered the City to pay the funds to the union.

Instead of complying with the arbitrator’s award, the City appealed the decision to the Superior Court, which ruled in the union’s favor, and then to the Appeals Court, which also upheld the arbitrator. Finally, the City appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. As it did in the lower courts, the City argued to the court that it could not comply with the arbitrator’s award because making the required payment would force it to violate the Lynn Bailout Law, chapter eight of the Acts of 1985. The Lynn Bailout Law, which arose from a prior fiscal crisis, sets up stringent requirements for spending on personnel expenses by city officials. But, the SJC noted, it applies only to regular budgets and appropriations, not to monies, such as grants, that are over and above the amounts appropriated in the budget. Because the arbitrator’s award applies only to grant funds, the SJC held, complying with the award does not require the City to violate the Lynn Bailout Law.

Chaperone’s Injury Field Trip For School Is Covered By Workers Compensation

In Karen Sikorski’s Case, SJC-10481A (12/11/09). the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a Massachusetts public school teacher is entitled to workers’ compensation for an injury she suffered while chaperoning a school-sponsored ski trip, even though she volunteered for the assignment and the injury occurred while on the slopes.

The SJC rejected the City’s argument that the teacher was ineligible for coverage because she volunteered to chaperone the field trip and because she injured herself in the course of “recreational activity.” To determine whether an injury is entitled to coverage, the Court said that several factors must be weighed, including: (1) the customary nature of the activity; (2) the employer’s encouragement or subsidization of the activity; (3) the extent to which the employer managed or directed the activity; (4) the presence of pressure or compulsion to participate; and (5) the employer’s expected or actual benefit from the employee’s participation.

The SJC had little difficulty in affirming that this teacher’s chaperoning of this field trip met the standard for workers’ compensation coverage. First, teachers customarily served as chaperones for ski club field trips and acted as teachers while they did. Second, the City encouraged teachers to participate as ski club chaperones. Third and finally, the ski club trips benefit the City by furthering the school’s broad educational mission, as confirmed by the City’s financial support for the ski club, the advisors and the chaperones.

Injuries that arise from recreational activity normally is not subject to workers’ compensation. However, the Court concluded that this situation did not fit within that exception because the teacher was required to be on the ski slopes supervising the students, and her injury occurred during her performance of that function.

This case is a helpful victory for employees who assume additional responsibilities for the employer, even if it involves a fun activity such as a ski field trip. The principles underlying this decision likely will provide useful guidance in the context of G.L. c.41, §111F claims for police officers and firefighters. But one should be careful not to read this decision too broadly – injuries that occur during a voluntary activity that do not relate to work place functions, such as a voluntary social gathering or golf fundraiser, may not necessarily be covered. If injured in a non-traditional work function, you should contact your union representative, Sandulli Grace, PC, or another legal representative to discuss your options for relief.