LOCAL 228—Court Officers
 |
www.MACO228.com |
NAGE Arbitration Victory Reverses Court Officer Transfer
January 18, 2012
A court officer who was involuntarily and permanently transferred from his courthouse to another in a disciplinary action has been returned to his courthouse following a NAGE arbitration victory. NAGE Attorney Jim Dever successfully argued the case before an independent arbitrator, proving that there was no just cause for the transfer of the court officer. The contract between NAGE and the Trial Court states that management has the right to discipline an employee only if there is just cause to do so.
“We’re very pleased with the outcome of this case," said Dever. "The burden of establishing the existence of just cause rests with management, and in this case, management could not show just cause. Management will no longer be allowed to cover their own staffing shortfalls by violating the just cause standard of discipline defined in the parties' CBA."
In this case, the court officer was given a written reprimand and was transferred from his court as a result of a co-worker’s complaint. NAGE argued that the transfer was actually retaliation for the court officer's prior union conduct and/or double jeopardy. The court officer had earlier been involved in a grievance against the Trial Court over unsanitary working conditions that had been investigated by the area board of health and OSHA.
The Trial Court alleged that it had transferred the court officer—not because of the unsanitary work conditions grievance— but because they had to remove him from the courthouse where the complainant worked. However, the complainant at some point was no longer working at the courthouse, and thus, the potential problem over the "close working relationship" no longer existed. So too, the court officer had already been disciplined over the matter of the complaint by being issued a written reprimand. The transfer after the written reprimand amounted to a kind of double jeopardy and, the union argued, clear retaliation for union activity.
The arbitrator found that there was no just cause to permanently transfer the court officer and subsequently ordered the court officer to be transferred back to his original courthouse.
Salary Schedules with 6% Increase
January 6, 2012
Your 6% pay raise negotiated in the NAGE Trial Court contract is scheduled to go into effect the first pay period of January 2012. The increase will include the pay period ending January 14, 2012, and you will see the raise reflected in your check issued January 20, 2012.
Click the link below to view the salary schedules that reflect the 6% raise, as well as the scheduled additional 3% raise effective June 30, 2012.
NAGE Trial Court Salary Schedule
Local 228 Submits Video in Support of Group 4
Local 228 delivered a powerful video to each member of the Joint Committee on Public Service, providing gripping footage of court violence that supports the argument for court officers to be classified into Group 4 for retirement purposes. The video, which can be viewed below, was created by Local 228 member Al D'Ambrosio.
"This is an impressive—and at times, shocking—video that shows what our members are up against in the courts," said NAGE Trial Court Director David Bernard. "You can't watch this video and ignore the real danger that our members potentially face every day they go to work."
In October, NAGE lobbyists and Trial Court members testified at the State House on behalf of a bill that would move members into Group 4. Local 228 President David Abbott also submitted a letter (see below) to the Committee.
Read Local 228 President David Abbott's letter to the Public Service Committee
CONTRACT HIGHLIGHTS
WAGE INCREASES TOTALING 10%
Memorandum of Agreement (Effective July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008)
3% increase effective 01/01/12
Memorandum of Agreement (Effective July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012)
1% increase effective 6/30/10 with retroactive payment of the increase
3% increase effective 01/01/12
3% increase effective 06/30/12
INCREASED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
Employer agrees to increase the uniform allowance by $25 effective February 2012.
IMPROVEMENT IN VACATION LANGUAGE
Employees will be eligible for a 5th week of vacation upon reaching 17.5 years of service instead of upon reaching 19.5 years of service.
PROTECTIVE LANGUAGE CONCERNING EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS
An Employee Performance Review instrument will not be implemented without impact bargaining, and will not be implemented until such time as a Management Performance Review instrument is implemented for all managers.
INCREASED EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE NAGE/TRIAL COURT HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND
The Commonwealth will increase its contribution to the NAGE Health & Welfare Trust Fund to maintain existing benefit levels. The Trust Fund provides benefits such as dental, optical, and dependent care coverage.
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 .
Court Officer Seniority List (updated October 2010)
Court Officer Seniority Instructions
Court Officer Seniority Appeal Form
Executive Board
President
David Abbott
Dedham
Vice President
Steve Farrell
Barnstable
Treasurer
Richie Linehan
Boston
Secretary
John Frank
Fall River
Essex Region
David Pelegrino
Newburyport
Middlesex Region
Robert Ryan
Newton
Middlesex Region
Wayne Mansfield
Cambridge
Plymouth Region
Scott Noe
Brockton
Suffolk Region
Billy Howard
BMC
Suffolk Region
Mark Hurley
East Boston
Western Mass. Region
Jason Martowski
Springfield
Worcester Region
Dave Deignan
Worcester
Worcester Region
Joe Sacco
Worcester
