LOCAL 700 - Assistant Chief Court Officers
Update on Trial Court Regressive Bargaining Charge Hearing
November 19, 2010
The Division of Labor Relations held the first day of the hearing on the Trial Court’s regressive bargaining charge yesterday (November 18).
The first day of the hearing appeared to point in a very positive direction for NAGE members. The hearing officer heard from NAGE witness Richard Anderson, who had been involved in the contract negotiations and who reiterated the clear fact that the Trial Court had agreed to the three 3% raises before pulling the economic offer off the table prior to the fact-finder issuing a decision.
Although the Trial Court alleges that changed economic circumstances forced them to pull the raises off the table, they have been limited to showing the economic climate “look-back” of only a seven-week period between when the fact-finder got the case and the Trial Court pulled their proposals. That limitation has been NAGE’s argument all along.
The second day of the hearing is scheduled for December 20. We will provide further updates as they become available.
Background on the Regressive Bargaining Charge
As you may recall, on December 29, 2008 NAGE filed a charge of prohibited practice against the Trial Court for regressive bargaining after the Trial Court withdrew their economic offer of 9% raises over three years.
On April 22, 2009 the investigator assigned to the case dismissed our charge. To protect the economic interests of our members, NAGE appealed the hearing officer’s decision.
In May 2010, the DLR overturned the investigator’s decision and remanded the matter back to the investigator, ordering the investigator to issue a complaint against the Trial Court. NAGE has always maintained its contention that the Trial Court illegally withdrew the economic offer from the bargaining table.
The decision requires a full hearing at the Division of Labor Relations. NAGE is extremely confident that we will prevail.
NAGE will continue to fight tirelessly to force Chief Justice Mulligan to bargain in good faith.
NAGE Filing Legislation to Amend 150E to Allow Evergreen Clauses
NAGE lobbyists are working on legislation intended to amend Chapter 150E of the Mass. General Laws to allow evergreen clauses in collective bargaining agreements. NAGE legislative agents have been working collaboratively with other labor unions throughout the commonwealth to ensure that legislators on Beacon Hill take up the critical issue during this lame duck session.
"We've met with Speaker DeLeo to specifically address this issue, and we're aggressively lobbying for support for our proposed amendment to Chapter 150E," said National President David J. Holway. "The opinion issued by the SJC dismantles decades of collective bargaining practice in the public sector, and ensuring the protection of evergreen clauses is on the top of our list of legislative priorities. We will continue to meet with leaders on Beacon Hill to get this amendment passed."
Background on SJC Decision
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in late October issued an opinion ruling invalid a so-called “evergreen clause” that purported to extend the terms of the collective bargaining agreement beyond three years until the parties reached a new agreement. The SJC found the evergreen clause violates M.G.L. c.150E, sec. 7(a), which states: “Any collective bargaining agreement reached between the employer and the exclusive representative shall not exceed a term of three years.”
The case, Boston Housing Authority v. National Conference of Firemen and Oilers, Local 3, SJC No. 10569, arose from the appeal of an arbitration award. The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) laid off sixteen fire fighters, citing fiscal concerns and lack of need. The layoff violated a minimum manning provision in the collective bargaining agreement. Although the CBA had expired, it contained an “evergreen clause” providing that the terms remained in effect pending negotiation of new contract. The arbitrator found a contract violation and ordered the grievants reinstated.
The Superior Court upheld the arbitrator’s award. The SJC ordered the arbitration award vacated because when the agreement expired the grievance and arbitration provisions lapsed: “The arbitrator, therefore, exceeded his authority in ordering the BHA to reinstate the firemen because he had no jurisdiction to arbitrate Local 3’s grievance in the first instance.”
The SJC recognized the evergreen clause is designed to provide a “code of conduct” for the parties during negotiations and has been recognized as fostering labor peace. Those concerns are trumped by the clear language of the statute limiting CBAs to three years.
The SJC stated the opinion is consistent with G.L. 150E, sec. 9, which permits parties to extend the terms of a CBA for a period in excess of three years. According to the SJC majority, section 9 permits “bridge agreements,” which preserve the terms of the CBA until a successor agreement is ratified.
The implications of the decision are not fully clear on other terms and conditions of employment in collective bargaining agreements. Given the potentially vast, although still unknown, implications of this decision, we will continue to evaluate legal and bargaining options. We are working closely with other public sector unions to determine a course of action.
NAGE Legislative Team Leads Way on Passage of Supplemental Budget Bill; Governor Signs Bill to Restore $9 Million to Trial Court Budget
October 15, 2010
The $400 million supplemental budget bill that we have all been pushing hard for months to pass was signed by Governor Patrick today. The bill includes the restoration of $9 million to the Trial Court budget.
View the bill; see page 34 for Trial Court appropriation
The NAGE legislative team was once again at the forefront of fighting for a budget bill that will directly impact our members and so many other employees in the Trial Courts. Despite the dire consequences of the bill failing, NAGE lobbyists had the audience of legislators almost to themselves, as some union lobbyists were conspicuously absent from the hallways of the State House.
The additional money comes from federal FMAP funds that were directed to the state in August.
We are extremely hopeful and optimistic that this infusion of additional funds will go a long way toward reducing or even eliminating the Trial Court’s current budget deficit.
NAGE sincerely thanks all of our members who called their U.S. Senators and Representatives to get the FMAP funds released to the Commonwealth, then called on state legislators to move those funds back into the Trial Court budget.
Governor Signs Amendment to Personnel Record Law
September 16, 2010
Gov. Deval Patrick recently signed an amendment to the Personnel Record Law, M.G.L. c. 149, § 52C, which will significantly (and positively) change your rights regarding your personnel records.
The amendment states:
“An employer shall notify an employee within 10 days of the employer placing in the employee’s personnel record any information to the extent that the information is, has been used or may be used, to negatively affect the employee's qualification for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or the possibility that the employee will be subject to disciplinary action."
A broad interpretation of the amendment would require an employer to notify an employee of any document created, including informal emails, that may negatively affect his/her employment. It could even include e-mails between a supervisor and a manager about an employee’s performance difficulties, a supervisor’s notes about an employee's absenteeism, and documents concerning an ongoing employee investigation.
Although guidance has not yet been issued about this amendment in the legal sphere, the amendment will likely require employers to notify employees about documents, such as written warnings, disciplinary write-ups, negative evaluations, and e-mails documenting verbal warnings. This also means that an employer will no longer be permitted to draft “memos to file” about employee difficulties without notifying the employee of the same, if the memo may be used “to negatively affect the employee.”
There is also some question about the use of the term “record” instead of “file,” which would require that the employer notify the employee of all negative documents drafted and not just those “placed” in employee “personnel files.”
And finally, the amendment to the Personnel Record Law is effective retroactively to August 1, 2010, so employers should have notified employees of negative documents created about them since that date if they have not already done so through their regular practices.
We will provide more information about the amended law as it becomes available.
Your Union Protections
NAGE has recently received calls from members who are concerned about the state’s budget situation and the effect the budget could have on jobs.
The Trial Court has not notified the union of any proposed layoffs or furloughs. We would inform you immediately if we ever learned of such proposals.
It’s important to know, however, that if the Trial Court does announce proposed layoffs and/or furloughs, they have a statutory obligation to bargain with the Union over the impact BEFORE any final and binding decision can be made.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact your National Rep or Trial Court Director David Bernard.
We will keep you updated with any information we receive from the Trial Court.
Never Forget Your Union Rights on the Job: "Weingarten Rights"
Most employees think it could never happen to them, but ... if you are ever called into an interview meeting with your supervisor or manager so that they can investigate a situation that might result in discipline, you have specific representational rights. These rights are called Weingarten Rights and are based on a 1975 Supreme Court decision (NLRB v. J. Weingarten).
WEINGARTEN RULES TO REMEMBER
Under the Supreme Court’s Weingarten decision, when an investigatory interview occurs, the following rules apply:
RULE 1: You have the right to have a union steward or union representative present, and you have the right to speak privately with your representative before the meeting and during the meeting. Your steward has the right to play an active role in the meeting and is not just a witness.
You must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview; management is not obligated to inform you of your right to representation.
If your manager refuses to allow you to bring a representative, do not refuse to attend the meeting, but do not answer any questions either. Take notes. Once the meeting is over call your representative at once.
RULE 2: After you make the request, your supervisor or manager can do one of three things:
1. Grant the request and delay questioning until your union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with you; or
2. Deny the request and end the interview immediately; or
3. Give you a choice of (a) having the interview without your union rep or (b) ending the interview.
RULE 3: If your request for union representation is denied and your manager/supervisor continues to ask you questions, he or she is committing an unfair labor practice and you have a right to refuse to answer. Your manager or supervisor may not discipline you for such a refusal.
This statement could save your job!
"If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated I respectfully request that my steward be present at the meeting. Without representation present, I choose not to respond to any questions or statements."
Seniority List October 2010
If you believe the date the Trial Court has for your seniority is incorrect, please fill out the appeal form (below), and send the form and a copy of corroborating evidence (e.g., appointment letter, promotion letter) to the address on the appeal form, or fax it to .
Assistant Chief Court Officer and Court Officer Seniority List (updated October 2010)
Seniority Appeal Instructions
Seniority Appeal Form
James Munchbach
President
781-329-1500 x242
Richard Caroselli
Vice President
781-326-1600 x345
Leonard Johnson
Vice President At-Large
413-538-9710 x249
Wayne McDaniel
Vice President At-Large
978-441-2630 x263
Gerald O’Neill
Secretary/Treasurer
508-473-1260 x113
