In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

HRD Appears To Have Given Up On Banding

Alan Shapiro
Alan Shapiro May 13, 2009

Based on the attached memo sent to the police chiefs by HRD, it appears the agency has finally relented and will establish promotional lists from the October 2008 exam in the traditional “whole number” formula.

As the memo goes on to state, HRD will attempt through rulemaking to change the current rule requiring scores in whole numbers.  If the rule is changed, they would then, presumably, band results of the next promotional examinations.

 I know that within seconds of this entry’s going out, we will be asked these questions:  (1) “Will you challenge banding in rulemaking?” and (2) “What is the likelihood of winning such a challenge?”  The answer to Question 1 is simple: we will do what our clients ask us to do.  To stop banding of this exam, our clients Mass. Coalition of Police and Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association jointly retained us.  Whether to contest the issue in rulemaking will be their decision.  As for the likelihood of a successful legal challenge to the rulemaking, I will say only that there are arguments that could be raised on both sides of the issue.

We (my law partner Bryan Decker and myself) again want to thank all of you for your support, but most especially our clients, MCOP and BPPA, without whom HRD would have been able to run roughshod over its own rules and the merit-based system Civil Service is supposed to be.

Download Memo…

Labor In The News

White House Honors Police Officers, Bppa President Tom Nee; Mcop Officers Recognized

Sandulli Grace Staff May 13, 2009

On May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden honored the Top Cops of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO).  In addition to praising the daily heroism of police officers, President Obama singled out Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. President Tom Nee for his leadership as NAPO President.  Sandulli Grace, PC, is proud to have the BPPA and Tom Nee as a client.  Massachusetts Coalition of Police President Hugh Cameron, another Sandulli Grace client, also attended the ceremony as a NAPO Area Vice President.  MCOP member Richard Cochrane of the Peabody Police Department received an honorable mention from Top Cops whereas Dalton Police Department’s Geoff Powell, also a MCOP member, was a nominee.

            Sandulli Grace congratulates Nee, Cameron, Powell and Cochrane, in addition to all other police officers, for their quiet service and dedication to the public good. 

            Below is the official transcript of the ceremony for NAPO’s Top Cops released by the White House.            

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                               May 12, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
AT CEREMONY HONORING THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATION’S TOP COPS

Rose Garden

2:38 P.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Welcome to the Rose Garden.  Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying —

THE PRESIDENT:  They can sit down.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  They can sit — yes, you can sit down.  (Laughter.)  I just assumed you were going to sit down.  I apologize.  Thank you, Mr. President. Tommy — you stay standing up, though, for me.  I don’t want you — (laughter.)

Let me begin by saying congratulations.  It’s an honor to be in the presence of the best of the best here standing behind us.  You’re all been an inspiration to the men and women of not only this country, but your fellow officers.  You’ve been an inspiration to the thousands and thousands of people who strap on a sidearm and go out every day to do their job.

When you strap on that sidearm and you walk outside your home every morning — every morning, or evening, depending on their shift — your wives and your husbands that you leave behind know that you are literally putting yourselves in harm’s way, every time you walk out that door.

And the President and I recognize the bravery you display simply by putting on that badge every day — just putting the badge on.  The officers honored here today have been singled out for going above and beyond the call of duty and we commend you all. But we also know that there are thousands more like you in communities throughout this country, large and small, doing their part every single day — as we speak right now — in their communities, making them safer but also making the community stronger.

Today is a day for every man and woman in uniform to feel proud of you, and to feel proud of themselves. Today is a day for the entire community of police officers to see how much America appreciates their courage, and to let you know that the President and this administration appreciate your courage, as well.  Your sacrifices and acts of heroism don’t go unnoticed.  I think sometimes you must feel like they do.  You do your job every day, you don’t expect any particular thanks or gratitude, you change people’s lives for the better and — but it’s warranted on a day like today to pay special recognition.

You’ve already seen some evidence of the President’s commitment, beyond his entire career of being committed to law enforcement.  The President’s commitment to the level of support for law enforcement can be seen in the Recovery Act.  Over $4 billion was placed in that emergency legislation to hire new officers, for new equipment such as bulletproof vests, and for new technologies, to give you the tools to do your jobs more safely and more efficiently.

You keep us safe.  We owe you.  (Applause.)  We owe you to put you in a position where you can keep yourselves safe, as well.

And you’ve seen the President’s commitment to you by bringing this ceremony back to the Rose Garden.  Mr. President, in the Roosevelt Room you said you wanted to let the public know.  And I was about to say — which I’ll say here — and that’s why the President wanted it back here in the Rose Garden.

So there’s no mistake, there’s no mistake that this President and this administration appreciates what you’ve done.  We know this commitment — (applause.)  I’ll conclude by saying, you should know this commitment will not stop today or tomorrow or next month or next year.  We’re going to work and continue to work, as the President has his entire career, for what serves you best so that you can serve us as best and as bravely as you have.

Ladies and gentlemen, while we don’t say it nearly enough, thank you, thank you, thank you for all what you do.

So Mr. President, the Top Cops for 2009, a superior group of real heroes, are waiting to hear from you, boss.  It’s all yours.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you, Joe, for the wonderful introduction.  Welcome, all of you, to the White House, and for joining us on this beautiful spring day.  It is an extraordinary privilege to celebrate these Top Cops who have traveled here to be recognized for incredible acts of courage and quick thinking, which prevented harm and saved lives.

Before I speak more about these outstanding officers, there are just a few wonderful members of Congress that I want to introduce.  Representative John Conyers, one of the deans of the House of Representatives — (applause) — Republican Emanuel Cleaver from Kansas City — (applause) — and Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, great to see you.  Thank you so much.  Please give them a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

Now, I don’t know if you guys are aware that we have a nickname for Joe Biden around here in the White House.  Joe has been overseeing the way funds are being used under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to ensure tax dollars are going toward the intended purpose of creating jobs and aren’t being wasted.  So we’ve taken to calling him “the sheriff” — because nobody messes with Joe.

And I want you to know that he is making sure that money is getting on the ground helping local communities, including making sure that money is going to allow local communities to hire more police officers and make sure that they’ve got the equipment and the training they need to succeed.

I also want to thank Attorney General Eric Holder for being here and for his leadership at the Department of Justice, which oversees much of the funding in the recovery plan and the budget that will be providing local law enforcement the resources they need.

And finally, I want to give a particular welcome to the leaders of the National Association of Police Organizations, including their outstanding president, Tom Nee.  Thank you so much for being here.

This is an event that we are glad, as Joe mentioned, to bring back to the White House — after a period of absence — in honor of these fine officers and the folks across the country they represent:  the men and women who walk the beat, who answer the call, and do the difficult work of keeping our neighborhoods safe.  And it’s no surprise that many police officers — including many of you -– have served in our military, or are serving still as members of the Reserve.

Of course, it’s not a difficult thing for a President, or a Vice President, or anyone one of us to praise you.  You deserve it.  You’ve rescued hostages held at gunpoint.  You’ve ended violent standoffs.  You’ve taken on gunmen in the face of grave danger, refusing to give up or back down even after suffering serious injuries.  You’ve reacted quickly in crisis to protect the innocent.  You’ve reacted with compassion for those that were in need.  And you’ve literally walked through the fire to help your neighbors escape disaster.

That’s what police officers do.  You step into harm’s way to form — officer by officer, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood — the line between safety and violence, calm and chaos, hope and despair.  And for that it’s not difficult to offer our praise.  But you deserve more than just praise.  For it’s far more important that we actually support you; that we match these words which come so easily with the work that can and must follow.

Right now, for example, at this moment of economic challenge, one of the greatest concerns is that we’ll see state and local governments forced to lay off police officers — even though we know that crime has a tendency to go up when the economy is in dire straits.  We’ve seen that in my own hometown of Chicago and many other cities.

So we can’t back down, because the job of every American depends on the job you do — and the resources that enable you to do that job well.  Police officers know better than anyone:  A neighborhood that isn’t safe is a neighborhood that isn’t growing, that won’t see old businesses hiring new workers, or new businesses opening their doors.  You know how devastating crime can be; how it can shatter lives and undermine whole communities.

And that’s why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes $1 billion to save or create about 5,500 jobs through the COPS program.  And there’s another $2 billion in grants which will help keep police officers on the beat and in the job.

In fact, in March I went to Columbus, Ohio, to speak at their police academy’s graduation ceremony. And these new officers are now protecting the streets of Columbus because of those grants — and there are similar stories being told in precincts all over America.

The budget we passed builds on the recovery plan, providing additional funding for the COPS program as well as for Justice Assistance Grants, also known as the Byrne-JAG program.  Taken together, we’re making a significant down payment towards my administration’s goal of adding 50,000 police officers across this country. (Applause.)  And that’s only part of what we’re doing to provide law enforcement with the tools and resources necessary to keep people safe.

As you know, this is a difficult moment for our nation.  But at a time when we face economic crisis born partially from irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington, I’m heartened by the folks who are standing behind me today who’ve demonstrated, with acts of selflessness and bravery, what it means to be responsible; what it means to be a problem-solver, a mediator, an investigator, and protector all wrapped into one; what it means to wave goodbye to your families and start another shift unsure of how it will end; and what it means to put your life on the line for a partner or a stranger in order — in other words, what it means to serve.

So I want to thank all of you for this extraordinary service.  I am honored to welcome you to the White House.  I’m proud to offer my congratulations, my appreciation, and most importantly my administration’s unwavering support.

God bless you and God bless the United States of America.  Thank you, all, for joining us here today.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

HRD Now Reporting Scores In Whole Numbers

Sandulli Grace Staff May 1, 2009

Some good news today on the Banding case front, as officers who log onto the HRD website to see their exam scores are now being given whole number scores.  As far as we know, lists are not yet established.  We spoke with the Assistant Attorney General representing HRD in our lawsuit today, and she indicated that we should know within a week. 

Several people have called or written to inquire whether our suit prohibits HRD’s delay in producing lists.  They point to G.L. c. 31, §25, which requires that lists be compiled within six months of the administration of the exam (a statute that HRD itself raised to the Court in urging speedy action on the case).  The bottom line is “no.”  Our case only protested the banding of test scores.  Any challenge to the timing of the certification of lists would need to occur via a separate action.  Given that it is likely that lists will be released before any action could be heard, we are unaware of any present plans to file such an action.  However, keep tuned, as we realize that the patience of those waiting for lists cannot last forever.

As always, we’ll let you know as soon as we know.  To get notification of blog updates, enter your e-mail in the box under “Join our Mailing List” in the upper left corner of this (or any blog) page.

And a very happy May Day to all.  

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

Superior Court Grants BPPA and MCOP Request for Injunction – Orders HRD to NOT Band Scores on Police Promotional Eligibility Lists

Sandulli Grace Staff April 16, 2009

In a thoughtful, well-reasoned 11-page decision issued this morning, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Bruce Henry ordered the Commonwealth’s Human Resources Division to NOT “band” scores on police promotional eligibility lists. Here’s the full decision. Judge Henry agreed with the arguments advanced by Sandulli Grace Attorneys Alan Shapiro and Bryan Decker that HRD must follow the statutory rule-making process before “banding” scores rather than issue them by “whole numbers.”  The decision does not inhibit HRD’s ability to issue promotional lists as Judge Henry expressly notes HRD can keep issuing lists under the traditional “whole number” format.  This decision represents a significant victory for the merit-based principles that serve as the foundation of the Civil Service system and a victory for the faith that the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. and Massachusetts Coalition of Police placed in this system.

As you may recall, HRD for decades listed promotional candidates in the order of the exam scores of police officers.  HRDs rules require the agency to rank scores in order of “whole numbers.” In other words, HRD ranked both 88.4 and 88.1 as an 88.  In February, HRD reversed this longstanding practice by announcing it would group scores among ranges, or “bands” of up to seven points as equivalent.  Sandulli Grace, PC, on behalf of BPPA, MCOP, and several individual police officers, filed suit.

Injunctions are rarely granted in Massachusetts.  Courts only can grant them if the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the practice, the plaintiffs seeking the injunction have a likelihood of success, and if an injunction will serve the public interest.  On all points, the Judge sided with our clients.  After summarizing the facts of the case, Judge Henry concluded that plaintiffs have “standing” to challenge HRD’s actions and thereby rejected one of the Civil Service Commission’s major arguments.  In his finding on standing, the Judge favorably cited the plaintiffs’ contention that banding will allow increased favoritism into promotional decisions:

The plaintiffs also contend that the banded scores will expand the candidate pool, thus increasing the potential that promotions will be based on favoritism and bias, rather than merit…  In addition, by creating a promotional system that provides fewer safeguards against favoritism and bias, the Division has potentially violated its duty to the plaintiffs.  Accordingly, I am persuaded that the plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action under G. L. c. 231A to challenge the banded promotional eligibility lists.

 Turning to “likelihood of success,” The Judge again sided with the BPPA and MCOP in concluding that plaintiffs have a “strong likelihood of success” on our claim that HRD violated its statutory obligation to conduct rulemaking prior to banding scores:

The practice of banding scores represents a significant departure from the way scores have been reported in the past.  While the proposed banding will be reported as whole number bands, the scoring is very different than what appears to have been intended by the requirement that scores be reported in whole numbers.  The scoring bands are a significant change in the manner of scoring and establishing the eligibility lists and that change should have been put in place using the procedure established by the Legislature for making a significant change in the rules. G.L. c. 31, §4. (emphasis added).

Turning to the issue of “harm,” the Judge found that an injunction will promote the public interest by upholding the integrity of the Civil Service system:

[A] determination of the issues raised by the plaintiffs will promote the public’s interest in guarding against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental hiring and promotion … and ensuring that the system operates on ‘basic merit principles, as defined in G.L. c. 31, § 1, absent properly documented and supported bases for departing from such principles in particular cases. (citation omitted, emphasis added).

 

With regards to the harm claimed by HRD – that an injunction will delay promotions – the Judge agreed with what we’ve been saying all along – that any delay is caused by HRD.  HRD can let municipalities make promotions TODAY by issuing lists with whole number scores:

While the defendants assert that any delay in the implementation of the new scoring method will impact communities which are attempting to fill vacancies on their police forces, I do not so find.  There is nothing which prevents the HRD from issuing eligibility lists in the same fashion that it has done so for years.

 

Finally, the Judge issued his conclusion and order:

Conclusion

            For these reasons, I find that a preliminary injunction should enter enjoining the defendants from issuing eligibility lists for the promotion of police officers in score bands rather than in the manner in which it has been doing so until a final resolution of this matter on its merits.

 

ORDER

            Until a final resolution of this matter on its merits, the defendants are preliminarily enjoined from issuing eligibility lists for promotions of police officers in score bands rather than in the manner in which such score have been reported up to the time of this proposed change.

 

 

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

            Obviously, this decision affirms of the deeply-held faith that the BPPA and MCOP have long placed in the merit-based principles that form the cornerstone of the Civil Service system.  This faith was tested and ridiculed by the arrogance of HRD and the Civil Service Commission’s refusal to hear the case. 

            It is not 100% clear where this case will go from here.  As HRD has repeatedly stated, it is under a statutory obligation to issue lists within 6 months of the taking of the exam, i.e. by April 20.  We hope that HRD will abide by Judge Henry’s thorough decision and the law and issue those lists in a timely fashion with scores listed and ranked in WHOLE NUMBERS. 

As always, we will keep you posted…

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

Follow Sandulli Grace on Twitter – Best way to get Immediate Notification when Banding Decision is Rendered

Sandulli Grace Staff April 10, 2009

Judging from the comments we’ve been receiving, folks are understandably anxious to hear the Superior Court’s decision in our banding case.  Make no doubt about it, we’re anxious too.  If you want to be notified of a decision within minutes of when we get it, here’s two quick steps to take:

1. Join our mailing list – just fill in your e-mail address in the box in the upper left corner of this page.  By joining, you will get an e-mail every time a new blog entry is posted.

2. Follow “SandulliGrace” on Twitter.  Not going to be near a computer to get your e-mail?  No worries.  Now you can get notifications sent to your mobile device via our Twitter page.  Just go to http://twitter.com/SandulliGrace and hit “follow.”  You’ll be asked to set up an account, and make sure you enable mobile notifications.  Then you’ll be notified each time we “tweet,” which I promise we’ll do the minute we get any word from the Court.

As to the banding decision, we’ve no word yet.  Clearly, the judge is seriously considering the matter, and is taking his time to get it right.  That can only be good news for us, as we think HRD’s violations here are plain.  Like I said, as soon as we know, you will – as long as you’re signed up.

Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

Judge Orders HRD To Not Issue Banded Eligibility Lists Pending Consideration Of Motion For Preliminary Injunction

Sandulli Grace Staff March 31, 2009

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Bruce Henry today ordered the Human Resources Division to NOT issue any eligibility lists for police promotion until after he rules on the request for a preliminary injunction submitted by Sandulli Grace attorneys on behalf of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, and individual test takers.  As we noted last week, we have challenged the Civil Service Commission’s rubberstamping of HRD’s decision to band.  Judge Henry today heard argument on our request for an injunction, and indicated that he will issue a decision on the injunction request soon. 

 At the hearing, HRD, represented by counsel from the Attorney General’s office, continued to insist that banding is lawful in the face of HRD’s rule that says scores have to be put out in “whole numbers.”  “Bands 1 to 7 are whole numbers, just like 1 to 100,” was essentially what HRD contended.  Attorney Shapiro responded that, under that logic, the bands could be 1 to 2 (pass/fail), 1 to 1,000 (scores broken to tenths of a point), or 1 to 10,000 (scores broken to hundredths of a point).  In other words, the Commonwealth contends that its rule has no substantive meaning.

After the Judge ordered that no lists be established utilizing banding, counsel for HRD complained that some unnamed municipalities could lose funding for promotions if they are not made quickly.  Sandulli Grace’s Alan Shapiro quickly pointed out that HRD is free to issue lists based on the 10/08 tests – as long as it follows its own rule and lists the scores by whole numbers from 1 – 100. 

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

 

Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

“Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly” Taps Sandulli Grace Attorney For Expert Commentary On Confidentiality Clause Case

Sandulli Grace Staff March 30, 2009

Sandulli Grace attorney John M. Becker provided expert commentary in a recent front page article in the March 23, 2009 edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.  MLW is the leading news publication in the state for the legal community.  Attorney Becker commented on the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Northeastern Land Services, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board, — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 638248 (2009). In this case, the First Circuit upheld NLRB’s conclusion that the employer’s discharge of an employee over an alleged breach of confidentiality was improper.   At the heart of the case was the employer’s rule that employees sign a confidentiality agreement that made employees promise not to discuss wages and terms of employment with others.  In other words, the employer prohibited employees from talking with each other about their compensation, to compare how they were being paid to other employees, which essentially prevented employees from networking to improve their working conditions.  Before he was fired, the employee became involved in a pay dispute with his employer which he then discussed with a third party.  Ultimately, the employer fired the employee, charging him with violating the confidentiality rule.

The employee filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, alleging that the confidentiality rule had the effect of intimidating and coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in collective activity.  Even though no union was involved in this case, the NLRB found (and the First Circuit agreed) that the confidentiality rule was so overbroad that it violated the National Labor Relations Act, which grants employees the right to organize and engage in collective action, no matter how the rule was applied.  The NLRB concluded that the discharge of the employee for discussing his wages and benefits was improper.  The decision serves to remind employees that they have a right to engage in concerted action about their wages and benefits, even if they elect not to do so under the aegis of a union.

In commenting on the case in “Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly”, Sandulli Grace’s Becker noted, “[The decision recognizes] that as employers become more sophisticated in ways to keep unions out of their shops, the board has to be able to recognize that and protect the rights of employees to organize, even if situations like this one where it’s not obvious that there’s a union issue.”  Becker disagreed with the employer’s attorney’s prediction of dire consequences from the decision.  On the contrary, he stated, “The court itself discusses the possibility of a more narrowly fashioned confidentiality agreement that reaches legitimate goals the employer might have without being overbroad.”      

Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

MCOP and BPPA File For Injunction to Stop Banding

Alan Shapiro
Alan Shapiro March 27, 2009

Today, March 27, Massachusetts Coalition of Police and Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, jointly represented by Alan Shapiro and Bryan Decker of Sandulli Grace, filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court to enjoin the Human Resources Division from promoting with banded lists.

The Court set a hearing on the injunction for Tuesday, March 31, at 2:00 p.m. in Suffolk Superior Courthouse, Room 916.

The arguments are essentially the same ones made, and rejected, before the Civil Service Commission.  HRD has a rule saying it establishes lists with “whole numbers.”  We all know that means the scores are supposed to be in a 1-100 format.  If they want to start banding, they have to change their rules.  The legal way to do that is to follow the procedures in the Civil Service law for rule-making. 

We want to thank all of you who have shown your support over these past weeks for our efforts to preserve a merit-based, civil service promotional system for police officers (and, by extension, others) in Massachusetts.

Read the complaint and the memorandum 

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News, Sandulli Grace In The News

Mass SJC Grants Another Victory To Boston Police Patrolmen’s Union In Long-Running Overtime Battle: City’s Unilateral Shortchanging Of Overtime Pay Violates State Law

Sandulli Grace Staff March 16, 2009

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state’s highest court, today upheld a 2006 ruling of the state Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) that the City of Boston unlawfully reduced the overtime compensation of Boston Patrol Officers without first bargaining with their union, the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, Inc. (BPPA).  The SJC and CERB ordered the City, which made the unlawful change in July 2002, to “make whole” the patrol officers represented by the BPPA – which likely will cost the City several hundred thousand dollars. 

Today’s SJC decision caps lengthy litigation regarding the City’s repeated violation of state and federal laws concerning overtime pay to Boston police officers.  In 2000, more than 800 Boston patrol officers, represented by Sandulli Grace Attorneys Bryan Decker and John Becker, sued the City in federal court for the City’s outright refusal to pay overtime as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The federal court agreed, and the City ultimately paid officers almost $700,000 plus attorney’s fees.  In July 2002, while the federal litigation was ongoing, the City unilaterally adopted the FLSA’s “partial public safety exemption,” which lowers federal overtime payments to police officers and firefighters.  While the City’s unilateral adoption of this partial overtime exemption was permitted by the FLSA, it was not by state law.  Under state law, Chapter 150E of Massachusetts General Laws, a municipal employer must bargain with a union before changing the wages of employees represented by a union.  The BPPA immediately demanded to bargain about this change.  The City refused, even though the parties were negotiating a new contract, and instead implemented the change.  On behalf of the BPPA, Sandulli Grace Attorneys Bryan Decker and Patrick Bryant filed an unfair labor practice charge with the state labor relations agency.  CERB ruled in the BPPA’s favor, and the City appealed. 

The SJC upheld the CERB decision on all points, finding that:

 

  • “the city was obligated under G.L. c. 150E to bargain in good faith with the union regarding” the July 2002 decision to adopt the partial public safety exemption;
  • that the City further violated the law by refusing to provide the BPPA with information it requested;
  • and that the proper remedy was for the city to “[m]ake whole affected employees for the economic losses they may have suffered as a result of the [c]ity’s decision to adopt” the partial public safety exemption. 

With regards to the remedy, a conservative estimate is that the City reduced overtime pay to officers by at least $100,000 per year by making the unlawful change.  Damages will run back to July 2002, and the BPPA’s members are entitled to interest.

BPPA President Thomas Nee welcomed the Court’s decision.  “We’re extremely gratified that the Supreme Judicial Court agreed with our position in this case.  The FLSA is designed to protect the rights of people who work more than 40 hours per week and ensure that they are properly compensated.  The Court affirmed that this applies to police officers as well.”

Sandulli Grace Attorney Bryan Decker, who argued the case to the SJC, said, “The City continuously, and improperly, claimed that it couldn’t comply simultaneously with the FLSA and its obligations under state law.  The SJC rejected this argument as bogus, and upheld that workers are entitled to the protections of the FLSA and their Union.  Given the state of our economy, this decision reminds employers that a desire to save money is not a defense to violating legal obligations.  Hopefully, municipalities will learn that the only way through these challenging times is to treat unions and employees as partners rather than problems.”

READ the SJC decision at:

http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=18853&sid=120