Appeals Court has held that the Massachusetts Bureau of Workers Compensation, which administers benefits to employees injured on the job, properly granted disability benefits to an injured truck driver, despite an independent medical report to the contrary. This decision to provide some comfort to injured employees who receive a negative evaluation of their claim from a Bureau-affiliated doctor.

Under Workers’ Compensation law, a person claiming a work-related injury may be required to submit to an independent medical examination. In Robert Dalbec’s Case, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 306 (06-P-358) (June 2007), a tanker truck driver was unable to work after a slip-and-fall injury on the job. The Independent Medical Examiner found that the claimant was capable of returning to unrestricted full-time work. The Administrative Law Judge (Judge), who heard testimony from the claimant about the physical stresses required by the job and his ongoing physical pain, rejected the IME report and awarded partial disability benefits.

The Appeals Court ruled that a negative IME report creates a presumption that the employee is ineligible for benefits. But this presumption, the Court held, can be rebutted simply by critiquing the report and determination that it is unfounded or unreasonable. The Appeals Court agreed that the IME doctor’s report and deposition testimony suffered from several major weaknesses, including a failure to assess the injury in light of the job duties and a failure to conduct critical tests about the employee’s fitness. Whereas the doctor appeared not credible, the Judge found the injured employee to be highly credible and the Judge conducted his own comprehensive analysis of the injuries and the job duties.

Download The Decision

In a recent decision, Ariel v. Town of Kingston (#06-P-825) (June 6, 2007), the Appeals Court affirmed that Massachusetts police officers and their public employers are protected from negligence lawsuits. The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act states that Massachusetts public entities cannot be sued for an alleged "failure to provide adequate police protection, prevent the commission of crimes . . . or enforce any law.” (See General Laws Chapter 258). In this case, the victim of a car crash sued the Town of Kingston, claiming that the negligent direction of traffic by two police officers caused another car to collide with her. The Appeals Court disagreed. “[The] police officers’ direction of traffic on a public way constitutes a form of providing police protection to the public for the risks involved in motor vehicle traffic.” These actions did not qualify as an affirmative promise of police protection. The court’s decision affirms a general understanding of the scope of immunity provided by the MTCA. Because the town and officers were immune from suit under the above language, the Court also found that other provisions of the MTCA did not provide basis for a different claim of negligence.

Download The Decision

A State judge has ordered the City of Lynn to pay $270,000 to the Lynn Police Association and its members for violating written promises to reimburse police officers for lost benefits. The Lynn Police Association (“the union”) is Local 302 of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, AFL-CIO and is represented by attorneys from Sandulli Grace, P.C. The decision, which was issued May 15, 2007, prevents a public employer from exploiting financial hardship to reneging on negotiated agreements with public safety unions.

The case arose in 2003, when the City of Lynn encountered serious financial troubles. After intense negotiations with the City, the Union signed a memorandum of agreement in which the officers agreed to forego certain negotiated benefits for a one-year period. These voluntary give-backs saved the City about $290,000 and demonstrated the Union’s willingness to help the city weather difficult financial times. In making this arrangement, the City agreed that if it obtained any federal or state grant funds, it would pay back the benefits sacrificed by the Union. When the City obtained a $270,000 community policing grant, it refused to pay back the benefits. The Union filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement, and Arbitrator Richard Boulanger found that the City breached the memorandum of agreement when it failed to apply the grant to pay back the officers for the benefits they had sacrificed. He ordered the City to pay the Union a sum equal to the value of the community policing grant.

The City appealed the arbitration decision to the Essex Superior Court, arguing that a state law designed to rein in irresponsible spending on personnel expenses by City officials prohibited the City from complying with the award and paying the $270,000 to the Union. The City also argued that the subject matter of the grievance was a non-delegable management right and not subject to arbitration. Superior Court Judge Kathe M. Tuttman rejected every single argument. Judge Tuttman found that public policy favored upholding the arbitrator’s decision. She held that the public interest was furthered by enforcing an agreement to reimburse the Union that had sacrificed negotiated benefits in order to help the City in troubled times. Judge Tuttman wrote: “Public policy requires the court to hold the [City] accountable for the contractual obligation it undertook to reinstate benefits that the [Union] voluntarily conceded in order to accommodate the [City’s] fiscal crisis if it became possible to do so.”

Sandulli Grace Attorney Susan Horwitz represented the Union in negotiating the memorandum of agreement and successfully arbitrating the grievance. Sandulli Grace Attorney John Becker, assisted by Attorney Kevin Merritt, represented the Union in the appeal of the arbitration award at Superior Court.

Download the decision

Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court held that public employers must pay pre- and post-judgment interest on lost earnings when they incorrectly deny a claim for injured-on-duty benefits under Massachusetts General Laws 41, §111F. (see our previous blog entry) In another victory for injured public safety officers, the Appeals Court has affirmed that §111F claims may be subject to arbitration and may be awarded to officers for stress-related injuries. As the arbitrator awarded §111F benefits to an officer who might not otherwise be entitled to him, this case supports arbitration as the most effective means to resolve disputes about whether an officer was legitimately injured-on-duty.

In Town Of Duxbury v. Rossi

(May 15, 2007), an officer’s stress-related hypertension worsened after he argued with his supervisor about swapping shifts. The officer left work immediately following the argument due to elevated blood pressure, but the Town refused to place the officer on paid injury leave. The town’s physician agreed that his stress was work related and that he was not yet ready to return to work. A neutral arbitrator agreed that the injury qualified for IOD pay under the collective bargaining agreement.

The Town asked the courts to vacate the arbitration award. In an example of everything-but-the-kitchen-sink form of argument, the town raised multiple arguments in support of it its appeal. The court rejected every single one.

First the court ruled that the arbitrator properly resolved a dispute about §111F benefits. Second, the Court rejected the Town’s specious argument that the arbitrator’s decision interfered with the Chief’s management rights. This ruling in particular shows that “management rights” is not a magic wand. Third, the court ruled an arbitrator has the power to award §111F benefits even if this award conflicts with the position of the Town’s physician. Fourth, the Court ruled that the arbitrator’s award of benefits does not violate public policy even if the officer was not entitled to §111F benefits for hypertension induced by interpersonal dispute at work. In other words, even if arbitrator made errors of fact and law, the decision must be affirmed. Finally, the court ruled the arbitration decision was not voided by a subsequent court action by the officer addressing his later return to work.

Download The Decision

In Pellegrino v. Springfield Parking Authority (May 17, 2007), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed that retirees from Massachusetts public employment cannot work for another state or local public employer in Massachusetts, including quasi-public agencies. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 32, § 91, individuals collecting benefits from a state or local retirement program generally cannot be paid for services rendered to another public employer. The limited exceptions to this ban on post-retirement public employment include when a retiree waives his right to retirement allowance during the period of post-retirement enrollment, or when the retiree works no more than 960 hours and earns no more between employment and retirement than the current salary for the position from which the former employee retired.

While the above rule is relatively straightforward, Kathleen Pellegrino argued that this prohibition on post-retirement employment applies only to public retirees who work for the state or local governments and not to public retirees who work for quasi-public entities such as the Springfield Parking Authority. The court disagreed.

Download The Decision

Sandulli Grace, PC Attorney Patrick Bryant has been invited to speak ona Boston Bar Association panel regarding recent developments in laborlaw. The panel is Tuesday, May 1, 2007 from 12:30 p.m.-2 p.m. at theBBA offices, 16 Beacon Street. According to the BBA, “An experiencedpanel of labor law practitioners-two from the union-side and two whorepresent management-will discuss current topics in labor law. Includedin the discussion will be the NLRB’s recent decision regardingsupervisors, Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., and its likely legal andpractical effects going forward.

The panel will also discuss theEmployee Free Choice Act, proposed legislation that has passed the Houseof Representatives and was recently introduced in the Senate, andneutrality agreements and card check recognition.” For information onattending the panel, go to www.bostonbar.org or call (617) 778-2030.

The Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, which administers the public sector collective bargaining law for municipal and state employees, just released four decisions that dismiss union charges of unfair labor practices. For your consideration, we provide the following brief summary of the key decisions.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASS/COMM’R OF ADMIN. & FINANCE (SUP-05-5174) (March 30, 2007)

In this case involving correctional officers, the Commission holds that an employer’s decision to record investigatory interviews of employees, instead of taking handwritten notes, does not qualify as a change in a term or condition of employment. The Commission also dismissed the charge over the new policy of disciplining employees for refusing to participate in investigatory interviews as there was no evidence that the employer did not do so prior to the policy.

Town Of Tyngsborough & IBPO (MUP-05-4420) (March 7, 2007)

In this case involving IBPO police officers, the Labor Relations Commission strictly interpreted its six-month statute of limitations in a manner that may encourage unions to file more ULP’s and more quickly. Here, the Union filed a ULP charge six months after the parties first discussed changes to the personal leave policy. Because the Union knew of these changes prior to that first meeting, the Commission ruled the charge to be untimely.

The Commission also found that the Union failed to support that the Town made a unilateral change concerning the personal leave and shift-swap policies. First, the union produced no evidence of a past practice that entitled patrol officers to use a personal leave whenever request. Second, the Union offered no evidence of the shift-swap practice in existence prior to the Town’s adoption of the policy.

CITY OF PITTSFIELD (MUP-05-4480) (March 7, 2007)

In this case involving IBPO police officers, the Union charged that the City’s implementation of a flex time scheduled for an in-service training officer violated the Law. The Commission disagreed and dismissed the charges. First, the Commission found no evidence that a flex time schedule actually was implemented. Second, the Commission found no evidence that the employer dealt directly with the officer about scheduling. Third, the absence of a new flex time schedule meant that the employer had no obligation to bargain. Finally, the Commission found no support for the claim that the employer refused to provide information requested by the Union. It noted that the Union failed to produce a copy of any request or describe the information not provided.

TOWN OF AGAWAM (MUP-05-4479) (March 30, 2007)

Here, the Commission dismissed the Union’s claims that the Town violated the law when it negotiated wage increases individual with three members of the bargaining unit. As wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining and the union is the exclusive bargaining agent, an employer cannot negotiate or implement changes to individual employee pay without providing notice and an opportunity to bargain first to the union. However, the undisputed evidence showed that the parties had a longstanding practice of permitting the Town to negotiate directly with individual employees and the Union had never communicated a change in its position on this practice. The Commission dismissed the charge.

In an ongoing battle between the Town of Agawam and its police officers regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Ponsor affirmed the Town’s liability. His decision in the case of O’Brien v. Agawam (O’Brien III) (March 31, 2007) rejected four arguments raised by the Town.

First, the Court rejected the Town’s argument that regular rate or base pay for purposes of calculating overtime should exclude time spent on paid leave. “Plaintiffs’ ‘regular rates’ should be calculated by adding their annual salaries, wage augments, and roll call pay, then dividing that amount by the number of hours these payments are intended to compensate (1950 plus roll call time).” Second, the court affirmed that the officers should be compensated during their meal breaks, which are unscheduled and during which they remain “on call.” As a side note, the Court states that the Massachusetts meal break law, G.L. 149, §100, does not apply to municipalities.

In the third and most significant aspect of its decision, the Court sets forth the standard to calculate overtime liability for periods of “court time.” Under the FLSA, officers receive 1.5 their regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 (unless the employer affirmatively adopts a §7(k) period). Applying this principle to periods of court time can be tricky, given that many officers receive a minimum payment of 3-4 hours pay whether or not they work that time. In cases where the Town does not record actual time worked by officers at court, Judge Ponsor said that the employee first must show: 1) he “performed work for which he was improperly compensated”; and (2) sufficient evidence of “the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” This is not an onerous task, noted the court, and the officers discharged their burden with an affidavits from officers estimating that they actually worked the minimum amount of time. At this point, the burden shifts to the town to refute the reasonableness of the employee’s claims. As the court noted, “the purpose of the burden-shifting scheme in cases like this is to prevent an employer from capitalizing on its failure to maintain records.” Here, the Town did not supply counter affidavits from court officials who could challenge its claims that officers did not the claimed time in court.

Finally, Judge Ponsor affirmed that the Town must pay liquidated damages, which means that Plaintiffs will receive double unpaid overtime compensation.

Download the decision

A recent decision by Massachusetts’ highest court may help to protect the privacy of individuals falsely accused of crimes by other citizens. The case, Eagle-Tribune Publishing Company v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Lawrence Division of the District Court Department, SJC-09665 (“Eagle-Tribune”), was issued by the Supreme Judicial Court on March 28, 2007. Law enforcement officials may benefit the most from the decision as police officers frequently are falsely accused of crimes by criminal defendants and can suffer public embarrassment from these false accusations.

The case discusses the public’s right to attend a “show cause” hearing, also known as a clerk’s hearing, which is a procedure that allows private citizens and police officers to apply for criminal process to issue against someone else. (The statutory basis for the procedure is G.L. c. 218, §35A.) The show cause hearing is held before a clerk-magistrate, who decides whether the evidence produced by the applicant shows probable cause that the accused committed a crime. Show cause hearings often are informal. The rules of evidence do not apply. The decision-maker is not a judge. The person accused of the crime has no right to appointed counsel at the hearing, though parties may retain private counsel to represent them. In many cases, criminal defendants use the show cause hearing procedure to allege crimes committed by the police officers who arrested them, whether or not the criminals have credible support for their claims. Criminal defendants may file such a claim as leverage to obtain dismissal of the charges against them.

The Eagle-Tribune case, involved a stabbing of an underage patron in a nightclub. The police applied for issuance of criminal process against the corporate owner of the club and a show cause hearing was scheduled. When the local newspaper sought to attend the hearing, the clerk-magistrate refused and declared the hearing private. The newspaper appealed, and the SJC decision is the ultimate response to that appeal.

The SJC found that the clerk-magistrate was well within his rights to declare the hearing private. Specifically, the court declared that there is no right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to public access to show cause hearings. The court provided three main reasons for this conclusion: (1) there is no established history or practice of public access to such hearings; (2) the show cause hearing is more like a grand jury proceeding (which is private) than a probable cause hearing (which is public), because the show cause hearing occurs before there are any criminal charges against the individual (as in the grand jury), while the probable cause hearing involves someone who is already charged with a crime; and (3) there is a strong public policy in favor of protecting the privacy and reputations of individuals who have been falsely accused of crimes from public exposure; according to the court, one important goal of the hearing is to “screen out baseless complaints with minimal harm to the accused’s reputation.”

Although the SJC found no First Amendment right for access to show cause hearings, it did state that public access is permitted and may even be desirable in some cases, when the legitimate interest of the public in the proceeding outweighs the right of privacy. In other words, the clerk magistrate decides whether a particular show cause hearing is open or closed. Although the court did not rule directly on this issue, it did provide some guidance on how it might rule in the future if a clerk-magistrate makes a show cause hearing public over the party’s objection. First, it is relevant if the underlying matter is already public, through, for example, news accounts. Then, the right of privacy arguably has been compromised already, and a public show cause hearing will not likely increase any damage to the accused individual’s reputation. Second, if the accused is a public official or highly visible person, the public interest in the matter may be more significant than if the accused is a private citizen. (The court does cite with approval the District Court Standards of Judicial Practice: The Complaint Procedure (1975), which states that “[t]he sole fact that the person complained against is a public official or otherwise well known is not in and of itself . . . reason for the hearing to be public." Commentary to standard 3:16.)

In sum, the Eagle-Tribune case is a mixed blessing for individuals, such as law enforcement officers, whose professions put them in contact with citizens who may have a reason to accuse them of crimes falsely. On the one hand, the clerk-magistrate has the right to make the hearing private, because the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to make it public. On the other hand, the clerk-magistrate has the power to make the hearing public over the objections of the parties under some circumstances.

The Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, which administers the public sector collective bargaining law for municipal and state employees, just released a batch of decisions from February 15 and March 15, 2007. For your consideration, we provide the following brief summary of the key decisions.

Board of Higher Education & AFCSME Council 93 (CAS-06-3631)

In this case, the Labor Relations Commission classifies Administrative Assistants to the Vice President of Student Affairs and the Vice President as "confidential employees" who are excluded from a bargaining unit of clerical employees. One assistant has access to the executive’s correspondence and phone calls regarding personnel decisions, including promotions, warning letters, requests for resignations, and the performance evaluations of department directors. She also examines personnel files and conducts research into personnel matters at executive’s request.

The other assistant is "involved in monthly budget meetings and directly handles the entry of budget numbers for the College’s operations and its budgetary planning," and has access to bank statements and documents. This involvement makes her "aware of the College’s budgetary discussions before final decisions or recommendations are publicized, including plans for layoffs or retrenchment of positions, assessment of departmental budget requests, funding for collective bargaining agreements, and the feasibility of proposed new positions." As a result, the Commission decides that this assistant, too, has significant access and exposure to confidential information concerning the impact of budgetary issues on labor relations matters.

Download the decision

NAGE (SUPL-03-3012)

In this case, a laid off employee charged a union, NAGE, with violating its duty of fair representation for the manner in which she was bypassed during two recalls in 2002 and 2003. The Commission dismissed the DFR charge as untimely because the primary allegations concern activity in 2002 which was beyond six-month statute of limitations period. The Commission indicates that it would consider these allegations if they were connected to activity that occurred six months prior to the filing of the charge. It suggests evidence that might have saved the charge: 1) when the second recall occurred; 2) the date on which the charging party learned about that recall; 3) when charging party’s representative contacted the Union to ascertain why DOR had not recalled charging party for the second time; 4) to whom the representative spoke at the Union; and 5) the details of his discussions with the Union.

Download the decision

Town of Weymouth/IAFF (MUP-05-4403 & MUPL-05-4516):

In these related cases, the Commission dismisses charges by a firefighter against town and union. The Commission found no evidence that involuntary transfer of firefighter over less senior employees constituted unlawful retaliation and intimidation as there was no evidence the employee engaged in protected, concerted activity, the town was aware of this activity, or the transfer was motivated by a desire to penalize or discourage protected activity.

The Commission also found that the union’s refusal to process the firefighter’s grievance did not violate its duty of fair representation. In the decision, the Commission added language that should serve as guidance for union decisionmaking and as boilerplate defense against baseless DFR charges:

"Rather, the information demonstrates that the Union considered and evaluated the merits of the Charging Party’s grievance, decided not to process the grievance on the Charging Party’s behalf, notified the Charging Party of its decision, and informed the Charging Party that he could process the grievance on his own up to the point of arbitration. Further, the Union considered the seniority argument proffered by the Charging Party and based its conclusion on its interpretation of the Agreement."

Download the MUP-05-4403 dismissal

Download the MUPL-05-4516 dismissal

State Police & SPAM (SUP-04-5104)

Here, the Commission refused to reconsider its earlier dismissal of an unfair labor practice concerning a charge of illegal transfer of shared bargaining unit work. The Commission held that its decision in a related case did not entitle the union to victory here. A previous ruling that the state police department illegally withheld information concerning shared work does not, without more, mean that employer committed an unfair labor practice on unilaterally changing a condition of employment.

Download the reconsideration Dismissal

Mass Turnpike Authority & USWA (UPL-05-169):

In another victory for unions, the Commission affirmed its previous dismissal of a charge against union which concerned its behavior during bargaining about part of the bargaining unit while the parties awaited a decision on the unit’s appropriateness.

Download the dismissal

Download the reconsideration

BHE & AFSCME Council 93 (SUP-05-5177)

In this case, the Commission found that the Union failed to show that the parties reached an oral agreement about an inclement weather policy for non-essential personnel. As part of its ruling about the absence of an oral agreement, the Commission noted that there was no evidence that the Union informed its members about the existence of an alleged oral agreement.

Download the dismissal

Worcester & NAGE (MUP-05-4542).

Here, the Commission concludes that the employer lawfully bargained to impasse on dredger reorganization and therefore was entitled to unilaterally change a condition of employment. The decision notes that the union failed to act aggressively enough to indicate that further bargaining could be productive

"Even though the Union asserts that it was ‘prepared to engage in further negotiations,’ it did not request that the Employer reopen negotiations at any point following the exchange of final offers on April 5, 2005. Additionally, there was no appreciable lapse in time between the last negotiation and the Employer’s declaration of impasse on April 7, 2005. Finally, the Employer’s letter dated April 7, 2005 was a ‘clearly defined and communicated position on impasse,’ and the Union’s failure to rebut that position indicates that the parties had reached ‘a contemporaneous understanding of the state of negotiations.’ HECC, 23 MLC 16, 19 (1996). This ‘state of negotiations’ in the instant case was an impasse."

Download the reconsideration