Category Archives: In Our Opinion…

NEW CERTIFICATION (EMD TRAINING) REQUIRED FOR DISPATCHERS

Sandulli Grace Staff September 28, 2011

Effective July 1, 2012, dispatchers must be trained in the Emergency Medical Dispatch Protocol Reference System (EMDPRS). EMDPRS is a system that “includes a protocol for emergency medical dispatcher response to calls, including structured caller questioning for patient condition, incident facts, and scene safety, pre-arrival instructions, post-dispatch instructions, selection of appropriate field resources to dispatch (such as first responder, basic life support, and/or advanced life support), and a continuous quality assurance program that measures compliance with the protocol through ongoing random case review of each emergency medical dispatcher.” 560 CMR 5.03.

In other words, if you answer 911 calls, you must be EMD certified. This new training involves a process that is much more detailed than before. Dispatchers will have to provide pre-arrival instructions and dispatch life support in compliance with written text of scripts and other processes within a Department-approved EMDPRS. So, every request for medical assistance will involve the dispatcher following a set of policies and procedures for the safe and effective use of the Department-approved EMDPRS.

Furthermore, under these new regulations, each EMD resource must establish a continuous quality assurance, improvement, and management program that, at a minimum, must include: documentation of the quality assurance case review process utilized to identify EMD compliance with the EMDPRS; written approval of the EMD medical director; ongoing random case review in accordance with the guidelines of the EMDPRS; and regular feedback of performance results to emergency medical dispatchers. In other words, there is the potential for liability and discipline.

If you are a dispatcher and are (or will be) in negotiations, I would advise that you raise these new regulations at the table when bargaining. They add significant responsibilities and duties to your job. Although it is mandated by the State, the Department should recognize the added work you are doing.

If you are not a dispatcher (e.g., a patrol officer) but are being asked to comply with these new certifications, call your union representative to discuss the probability that these new duties could be a change in your working conditions and thus should be bargained.

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

Sandulli Grace Files Supreme Judicial Court Brief In Case Challenging Quinn Bill Cuts

Sandulli Grace Staff January 28, 2011

As you no doubt know if you are a reader of this blog, many police contracts contain provisions which seek to “modify” the educational incentive benefits granted by the Quinn Bill. Under the Quinn Bill, M.G.L. c. 41, §108L, qualified officers receive salary increases from 10-25% based on the attainment of criminal justice related college degrees. The Quinn Bill is a local option statute, meaning that it only applies in municipalities that voluntarily adopt it. In addition, the Quinn bill states that the state will reimburse Towns for one half of monies spent on Quinn Bill benefits.

The contract provisions modifying the Quinn Bill generally allow municipalities to cut pay to officers in the event that the Commonwealth fails to fully reimburse 50% of Quinn Bill expenditures. In other words, the contracts allow the municipalities to pass 100% of a targeted local aid cut onto officers.

Because the Quinn Bill is not a statute that can be modified by collective bargaining, several lawsuits have been filed across the state seeking to invalidate contract provisions that cut Quinn benefits. The first suit was filed by Sandulli Grace representing officers in Mashpee, where the local union is an affiliate of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police. Sandulli Grace also represents officers in a separate case filed in Boston.

Late last year, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed to pluck the Boston case out of Superior Court and hear it in the first instance. Today, we filed our brief in chief in the case. You can read it here. The case is actually quite straightforward – the Quinn Bill cannot be legally modified by collective bargaining, and therefore officers must be paid their full benefit, regardless of any collective bargaining agreement allowing otherwise. While the Boston case was transferred to the SJC before any decision was rendered below, the Middlesex Superior Court did issue a finding consistent with our position last month in a case involving North Reading. You can read about the North Reading case at pages 11-13 of our brief.

We’re very hopeful that the SJC will agree with us and rule that police officers who have diligently pursued advanced education for the benefit of their employer and themselves should be paid their full Quinn Benefits. After the City of Boston files its brief and we reply, the court will set the case for oral argument. We hope that this will occur in the spring, and that we have a decision not long thereafter. Of course, we’ll keep you posted.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: THE NEW SCAPEGOATS

Alan Shapiro January 6, 2011

In an article published yesterday by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, entitled “The Shameful Attack on Public Employees,” Professor Reich rebuts the most common myths about public workers. Included among these myths are:

Public employees earn more than private sector employees
Public sector pensions are crippling the country
Bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode

None of these statements withstand factual scrutiny yet they are repeated by many politicians and business leaders as if they were gospel. The question is “Why?”

Professor Reich convincingly argues that this attempt at pitting public v. private sector workers masks what is really happening in our country:

“[C]orporate executive pay … continues to rise as corporate profits soar”
Wall Street bonuses are higher than before taxpayers bailed out the financial industry
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers continue to pay 15% federal tax, while the rest of us pay close to or more than double that
“[T]he top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate.”

As Reich summarizes the situation:

Don’t get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.

But isn’t it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don’t include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.

It’s only average workers – both in the public and the private sectors – who are being called upon to sacrifice.

The Big Lie is a strategy that has been employed by some political figures over the last century to win over public opinion in an attempt at seizing power. The Nazis in Germany and Joe McCarthy here in the 1950’s are prime examples. As someone once said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” We need to make the current crop of political leaders accountable for what they say.

Alan H. Shapiro

Sandulli Grace, P.C.

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

SJC’s Boston Housing Authority Decision Invalidates Contractual “Evergreen Clauses”

Sandulli Grace Staff October 23, 2010

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today issued a significant decision impacting public sector collective bargaining in Massachusetts. The court struck down the validity of contract extension provisions that appear in most of our clients’ collective bargaining agreements. These provisions are called “evergreen clauses.” In Boston Housing Authority v. Nat’l Conf. of Firemen and Oilers, Local 3, SJC-10569 (Oct. 22, 2010) (slip opinion), the Court held that these mutually bargained-for clauses, requiring contract provisions to remain in force until the parties reach agreement on a new contract, violate Massachusetts General Laws c. 150E § 7(a), which states “[a]ny collective bargaining agreement reached between the employer and the exclusive representative shall not exceed a term of three years.” M.G.L. c. 150E § 7(a) (West, 2010). Because evergreen clauses effectively extend the terms of a contract beyond the three-year limit set out by the Legislature, this legislative mandate trumps the parties’ agreements.

This decision is a significant change in the law governing public sector unions. For thirty years, evergreen clauses have been approved by the Division of Labor Relations despite the language of section 7(a) of G.L. c. 150E. By invalidating them today, the SJC has handed public sector labor unions a major challenge and have altered the playing field.

There is no question that today’s SJC decision makes it harder for public sector unions to represent their members in collective bargaining. However, the decision will also cause consternation in the employer community, as everyone works to determine its exact contours. While the SJC struck down evergreen clauses, it also noted that the clauses are firmly in the public’s interest, not just the interest of unions. “We recognize that an evergreen clause is designed to maintain the status quo in labor relations and provide for a continuing code of conduct while parties negotiate a new bargaining agreement.” The court further noted that evergreen clauses “foster labor peace.” Thus, the elimination of the availability of evergreen clauses upends BOTH sides of the labor relations table.

Due to the significant departure from established precedent presented by this case, we will take the time necessary to digest its full impact and devise strategies to deal with its implications. For our police and fire clients, the binding arbitration provisions of the Joint Labor Management Committee statute potentially provide some safe harbor from the most draconian implications of the decision. For now, we encourage all public sector unions to work together to find solutions to this problem. We will continue to update you on developments and reflections on how to minimize the negative impact of this decision.

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

Appeals Court Victory for Retiring Teacher

Sandulli Grace Staff April 13, 2010

Sandulli Grace successfully argued before the Appeals Court that a teacher is eligible for creditable service for retirement for service performed out of state so long as that service is in a day school that is under exclusive public control. It does not have to be for a school committee or a board of trustees. In the Weston case, the teacher had taught special needs students in Virginia before the public schools provided special education. Rodney Weston taught in a school in Fairfax Virginia which was under the control of the Department of Health, a public entity. The Teacher’s Retirement System had denied his application to buy back the service credit because the employer was not a school committee or a board of trustees. The Appeals Court found that the MTRS, CRAB and the Superior Court were all wrong in their interpretation of the statute by improperly limiting the service eligible for service credit. The case is Rodney Weston vs. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, 09-P-475 March 18, 2010.

Download The Case…

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

Mashpee Quinn Suit Update! Judge Denies Town’s Motion To Dismiss Case To Proceed To Ruling On Merits

Sandulli Grace Staff April 2, 2010

Earlier this week Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Robert Rufo denied the Town of Mashpee’s motion to dismiss the Quinn bill lawsuit brought by several Mashpee Officers. The Suit contends that the Town violated the law when it reduced Quinn Bill payments to officers based on an anticipated reduction in state funding. After hearing argument, Judge Rufo denied the motion from the bench, an unusual move. The case will now proceed to a decision on the merit.

The suit alleges that under the Quinn Bill, a municipality may NOT reduce Quinn bill benefits, even if the collective bargaining agreement between the municipality and its union would purport to allow a reduction. This is because the Quinn Bill is NOT a statute that parties may amend via bargaining. Allowing a Town to reduce Quinn benefits is the same as allowing it to pay officers below the minimum wage. Even if the contract says it’s permissible, it is not.

“We’re extremely happy that Judge Rufo refused to dismiss the case. The officers will now have their case heard on its merits,” said Sandulli Grace’s Bryan Decker, who argued for the officers. “We’re confident that we will prevail and that the Town will be ordered to pay its officers the full benefit to which they are entitled.”

Even assuming that the case will be successful, educational benefits for officers are not ensured in the future. The legislature already “closed” the program to newly hired officers; and the Governor is pushing further changes that would ALLOW a town to reduce payments if the state short changes the town on reimbursement. “It’s pretty disgraceful, the state’s reduction in Quinn reimbursement is nothing more than a back door local aid cut,” says Decker. “Nonetheless, towns and cities can’t just cut police officers’ pay. That’s outrageous.”

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

Legislative Committee Hears Strong Police Union Opposition To Governor’s Attack On Civil Service

Sandulli Grace Staff February 26, 2010

On Wednesday morning February 24, 2010 the Joint Legislative Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held a hearing to address the Governor’s improper efforts to stack the Civil Service Commission by eliminating the salary of 3 of the 5 Civil Service Commissioners. The Governor’s plan would completely politicize the Commission by puttng virtually all the power in the chair who is answerable directly to the Governor.

At the hearing there was a tremendous outpouring of opposition to the Governor’s proposal. The hearing room was overflowing with representatives from numerous police organizations clearly leading the opposition to the Governor’s efforts. Tom Nee, President of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association testified as did Sandull Grace Attorney Susan Horwitz. See her comments below. Also the Massachusetts Coalition of Police was represented by Vice President Kenneth Scanzio and Attorney Tim King.

The Committee members appeared very concerned with the Governor’s proposal and listened to the objections from the police union witnesses. The Committee members heard that the Civil Service Commission needs some fixing but that the Governor’s proposal is not the appropriate action and in fact will only make things worse. It is wrong to politicize an agency whose primary mission and purpose is to keep politics out of public emloyment. The Civil Service Commission is sometimes the only place where employees can turn to insure fair treatment in their employment. The Committee must act within ten days of the hearing and report whether it approves or disapproves such plan and then at least one branch at the general court must vote it’s disapproval by a majority vote in order to prevent the Governor’s plan from taking effect as of March 27,2010.

Please continue to let the Committee know your opposition to this anti union and anti employee plan.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATE ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

House Staff:
Room 22
State House
Boston, MA 02133
House Staff Telephone: (617) 722-2140

Senate Staff:

Room 413A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Senate Staff Telephone: (617) 722-1643

Susan’s statement to the Joint Legislative Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

My name is Susan Horwitz and I am an attorney representing the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association. I also have been representing individuals before the Civil Service Commission for over 25 years and I previously worked for the Federal government as a personnel officer implementing federal civil service law.

I am here today to ask you to disapprove the Governor’s actions to improperly restructure the Civil Service Commission.

The role of the Civil Service Commission as described in the Statute, Chapter 31, is to enforce the basic Merit Principles as described in the law. The agency is responsible for assuring fair treatment of all applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affilation and to assure that all employees are protected against coercion for political purposes and are protected from arbitrary and capricious actions.

The State Courts have further emphasized that the fundamental purpose of the civil service system is to guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in government employment decisions and to protect public employees from political control.

I believe that if you take a close look at the Governor’s proposal you will see the irony in his proposal since it does not pass the standard of keeping politics and fairness in the structure of the Civil Service Commission itself. Were the Commission reviewing the personnel actions proposed by the Governor’s proposal it would surely find it in violation of merit principles and in contravention of the essence and purpose of the civil service law and system.

The Commission is designed with 5 commissioners and creates balance by ensuring that at least one member is a representative of labor, 2 representing management and also that no more than 3 commissioners can be from the same political party. Clearly this is designed to create balance and fairness and to assure that the Commission will carry out its role as a fair and neutral agency. It is clear that the Commission must not be influenced by politics and surely should not be restructured for political expedience. The proposed restructure will effectively eliminate the labor member of the Commission and will create a one person commission which will be directly responsive to the Governor since the Governor will determine which Commissioners are paid a salary. What had been an agency which has been and must be independent of executive control would now be entirely under executive control. It is essential that the Civil Service Commission be an independent watchdog to assure fairness in public employment. This proposed new structure effectively eliminates the guarantees of balance between labor and management and between political parties.

The purpose of terms of office is to insulate officials from being removed because those that appear before the agency may dislike decisions made by the agency. This new structure would effectively terminate current commissioners just to satisfy the complaints of those who are not willing to work within a fair and unbiased system.

The Governor’s proposal undermines the principles of the civil service system and politicizes an agency whose purpose is to keep politics out of public employment. The civil service commission is the only place where individual citizens can go to ensure fair treatment in their efforts to obtain public employment and to ensure their fair treatment as public employees.

The effort to rush in these changes is further evidence that there are political motivations to this proposaL. It is wrong to try to make these radical changes without proper review and analysis by the legislature. This proposal does not create efficiency in government it merely politicizes an agency which must be independent in order to carry out its mission.

We therefore ask you to disapprove of this dismantling and politicizing of the Civil Service Commission.

Susan F. Horwitz, Esq

Sandull Grace, PC

44 School St Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02109

617-523-2500

shorwitz@sandulligrace.com

In Our Opinion..., Labor In The News

GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS: NO BANDING BUT MAYBE NO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Alan Shapiro February 18, 2010

Like one of those standard joke setups, I have good news and bad news.

First the good news: Human Resources Division (HRD) has dropped banding, at least for now. The Civil Service Commission just issued an email with the announcement of a public hearing on February 25 to review proposed amendments to HRD rules. The rules no longer contain a provision for banding of examination scores.

In reviewing the proposed changes, I actually find some of them improvements. For example, they clarify how to deal with the period when old lists are expiring and being replaced by new ones. If HRD does not receive the certification (“the list”) back from the employer at least three weeks before a list expires, it will not, assuming these rules go through, issue a certification. This creation of a “bright line” separating the two lists removes some of the politicking that has invariably influenced this process.

Now for the bad news. On January 27, Governor Patrick filed legislation that would go a long way towards gutting civil service. The Commission now has, as it has had for decades (at least as long as I’ve been practicing, which goes back to at least the Hoover Administration), five Commissioners: a chairman and four others. Only three of them now receive full salaries, with Commissioner Dan Henderson’s being the lowest of those, at about $77,000.

The Governor has proposed to essentially eliminate Commissioner Henderson, by converting his position from one of a relatively modest salary to one with no salary. Since Henderson presumably does not have a trust fund to fall back on, this would necessitate his leaving this position. Ironically, this change would come following significant criticism from the management labor community (including Boston Police Commissioner Davis and the Mass. Municipal Association) protesting Commissioner Henderson’s repeated insistence on issuing decisions in accordance with the law and not as a rubber-stamp for public employers.

Also in the bill, Commissioner Jack Taylor, who is already reduced to a part-time schedule, would see his salary go from about $35,000 to zero. Coincidentally, Taylor was the only other commissioner, besides Henderson, to vote against allowing banding to go through about a year ago. The other three commissioners, including Chairman Bowman, saw no problem with it. We had to then go to Superior Court to find someone who would actually read the law and force HRD to live with its regulations requiring scores to be set out in “whole numbers.”

What is particularly nefarious about the legislation is that, by the way it was filed, it automatically goes into effect on March 27, unless one branch of the Legislature votes it down before then. A copy of the bill can be found here.

If you still believe that having an independent Civil Service Commission has any value, I cannot urge you strongly enough to contact your union, your legislators, and anyone else who will listen to try to stop this legislation from becoming law.

Had this been done by the Romney Administration it would not have been surprising, but coming from the first Democratic governor in over 15 years, it is shameful.

Alan Shapiro

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

Boston Globe profiles MCOP court case for full Quinn Bill benefits

Sandulli Grace Staff February 17, 2010

The Boston Globe today profiles the efforts of Massachusetts Coalition of Police to obtain full Quinn Bill benefits for members in Mashpee and Wrentham. Sandulli Grace, PC Partner Bryan Decker is quoted about MCOP litigation to restore full Quinn Bill benefits to police officers. Some municipalities reduced Quinn Bill benefits after the State reduced its reimbursement to localities. MCOP argues that any reduction in Quinn Bill benefits is an express violation of M.G.L. 41, s108L.

Read the article in full and then comment on the boston.com web site.

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

Legislatures Restores Benefit For Disabled Public Employees

Sandulli Grace Staff February 15, 2010

It is an unfortunate reality of the modern workplace that public employees can and do become permanently disabled simply by doing their job. Police officers and firefighters, in particular, who respond to the call of duty can suddenly find themselves unable to work a job that has been a lifelong passion.

Thankfully, Massachusetts law recognizes the great sacrifice made by these public employees. Chapter 32, Section 7 of Massachusetts General Laws provides Accidental Disability Retirement for persons who sustain a career-ending injury in their work. This statutory safety net provides 72 percent of an employee’s regular compensation. For years, the retirement allowance was based upon compensation earned by the disabled employee on the date of injury or the compensation earned during the 12 months prior to retirement. (Contrary to myths fueled by the media, overtime and traffic details are not considered part of compensation and therefore are excluded from public employee retirement calculations).

Last year, the Massachusetts legislature reformed the public employee disability retirement laws. This reform was, in part, an effort to curb the practice of disabled employees being temporarily promoted on the date of injury. The reform, however, eliminated the option of calculating disability retirement allowance on the compensation for 12 months prior to retirement. The unintended consequence of this change was that disability retirees faced a dramatic reduction in their pay because of the time that can elapse between the date of injury and the date of retirement (Delay can be caused by an employee’s efforts to return to work or exhaust all medical improvement options, or by bureaucratic delay involved in processing a disability retirement application).

Sandulli Grace, PC, was very vocal in its criticisms of this aspect of the law. Thankfully, the Massachusetts legislature recognized the problem and restored the longstanding option of using last 12 months of compensation for the basis of calculating retirement allowance. (The base compensation refers to the employee’s permanent position and not any temporary position the employee may have had at the time of retirement). This amendment is retroactive to July 1, 2009. Disabled public employees who retired after July 1, 2009 should contact their retirement board to confirm that you are receiving the intended benefits of this change.

A memo explaining the new change by the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission is attached.

Download PERAC memo