LOCAL 229—Probation Officers
Probation Presidents, NAGE Staff Meet with Probation Administrator
September 2, 2010
On August 31, Local 229 President Margaret Thompson, Local 118 President Larry Dullea, NAGE Trial Court Director David Bernard, and NAGE Attorney Michael Manning, met with Dr. Ronald P. Corbett, Jr., the acting administrator of the Probation Department. We believe that the meeting set the foundation for a solid, productive relationship between probation officers and Dr. Corbett.
Dr. Corbett spent most of the hour-long meeting listening to our concerns. As a former probation officer and deputy commissioner of probation, he clearly understands and respects us and our work. He said that he believes his job, and that of management, is to support probation officers.
Dr. Corbett agreed to increase communication with rank and file probation officers, and has committed to regular meetings with the union to strengthen the department’s relationship with us. He also seemed eager to work with us to change the public perception of probation, which has been portrayed so badly in local media recently.
We look forward to working with Dr. Corbett and will keep you informed of any new developments by blast fax and on this website.
Your Union Protections
August 25, 2010
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"
August 25, 2010
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."
NAGE Members Win Huge Victory with Labor Board Ruling: Decertification Petitions Put on Inactive Status
August 10, 2010
The Division of Labor Relations has issued a formal written ruling stating that the charge of regressive bargaining against the Trial Court requires the Labor Board to place NEPBA’s decertification petitions on inactive status.
The ruling by the Board says:
“The scope and the character of the allegations in the Prohibited Practice Complaint (regressive bargaining charge) are precisely the type of allegations that have a tendency to interfere with free electoral choice by employees and processing the Petitions is inconsistent with a question concerning representation.”
“It is reasonable to infer that the Employer’s alleged regressive bargaining and failure to engage in good faith fact finding caused … the Petitions.”
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
With the formal written ruling issued, the next step in the process is for the Labor Board to schedule a full hearing on the regressive bargaining charge. NAGE will continue to push aggressively for the soonest possible hearing date, despite the Trial Court’s stalling and delays.
Read the ruling issued by the Labor Board
Contract Questions and Answers
July 27, 2010
NAGE representatives have been meeting with Trial Court members every day in courthouses across the state in order to provide up-to-date information on all new developments within the Trial Court.
We’ve received a number of questions about the contract, specifically the need for clarification on the status of the wage proposal and where things stand in relation to the regressive bargaining charge and NEPBA’s attempts to block the bargaining process.
Q: Where does the wage proposal stand?
A: When negotiations began, your bargaining team submitted more than
100 proposals—both large and small—to the Trial Court to win wage increases and improve language in the contract for members. Negotiations continued until it was clear that a settlement could not be reached, at which point both sides agreed to go to fact finding. However, throughout the entire bargaining process, the wage proposal was never in dispute.
The Trial Court even acknowledged in its post hearing brief that they were in agreement with the wage proposal of 3% 3% and 3% raises:
“The Trial Court has proposed the same annual wage increases, including their application to the PO II differential of Appendix D as listed by the Union as its first issue for fact-finding. The parties’ positions on this issue appear not to be in dispute.”
Inexcusably, the Trial Court illegally yanked the wage proposal off the table before the fact-finder ever issued a recommendation. NAGE attorneys immediately filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Trial Court for bad-faith bargaining. When the charge was initially dismissed, the Union didn’t give in. NAGE fought the dismissal and won—the Labor Board has ordered an expedited hearing on the regressive bargaining charge.
NAGE members have been persistent in this ongoing battle with Chief Justice Mulligan and the Trial Court. Trial Court management was wrong to take the wage proposal off the table and we need to continue to hold them accountable for their mismanagement until we win. It’s important to understand that we are fighting together against Trial Court management. NEPBA has intruded and obstructed our process because they don’t want you to know the truth—that NEPBA would have to start all over with the Trial Court and everything that we have fought for together would be lost. NEPBA lacks the resources, clout and experience to win anything for you.
Q: Where does the regressive bargaining charge hearing stand?
A. The Labor Board has not yet set a hearing date on the regressive bargaining charge. NAGE will continue to push for an expedited hearing before the Labor Board. We will notify you as soon as the date is set.
NAGE will continue to provide you with timely, accurate and honest information as we receive it. If you have any specific questions about the contract or need any other information please contact your field representative or David Bernard at (617) 376-7250.
Boston Globe’s Kevin Cullen Follows, Praises Probation Officers
July 6, 2010
Only weeks after the Boston Globe plastered headlines about alleged troubles in the state’s Probation Department, Globe columnist Kevin Cullen wrote a moving July 4th column about the work of two Dorchester District Court probation officers.
“There has been much said and written of late about problems with the Probation Department in Massachusetts,” wrote Cullen, “but the problems are not he creation of probation officers like Trina Higgins and Galvin Leggett. They work hard, defy burnout, go into places you couldn’t pay most people to go into, and very often lock up people too dumb to appreciate the break they got when they got probation instead of jail.”
You can read the entire column here.
Cullen Responds to NAGE Questions about Column
July 9, 2010
With all the negative press hitting the Trial Courts and probation officers, NAGE asked Globe columnist Kevin Cullen what prompted him to look deeper and more honestly at the work probation officers do every day. He responded as follows:
I wrote that column because, in my 27 years in this town as a reporter, I don't recognize the stereotype of the lazy, do-nothing probation officer who only got where they are because of political connections. I'm sure there are some who fit that mold, but not the vast majority. Most of the PO's I know, and I know quite a few, work hard and do the right thing every day.
I don't mean to bash the Globe Spotlight series, which I think was good, important journalism.
But, as I said in the column, whatever problems Probation has is not because of the vast majority of PO's, who do their work and do it well. It's a hard, often thankless, job and I wanted to highlight some of the good people out there.
Trina Higgins and Galvin Leggett were kind enough to let me tag along with them, with the blessings of their boss, Bernie Fitzgerald, but they stressed that they don't do anything that the vast majority of PO's do every day, to little fanfare.
The column was meant to provide a balance to the investigation of the Probation Department, which was capably carried out by my friend and colleague Tom Farragher and his team in Spotlight.
Trial Court Employees Help Public—And Media Gives Them Credit!
July 6, 2010
Although some media outlets seem to love portraying Trial Court workers in the worst possible light, there are some that recognize good work when they see it. Two probation officers recently made positive differences in their communities and, in each case, local newspapers made the stories public.
“Probation officers do many good things every day, but it’s still a shock to see positive stories about us in the media,” said Margaret Thompson, president of NAGE Local 229, which represents probation officers. “I hope that these stories will encourage more reporters to look past the gossip and learn more about how much we contribute to our communities.”
First, an Attleboro District Court probation officer was recognized in a recent Sun Chronicle article for his “tenacious” efforts to recover over $34,000 owed them by a home contractor. The couple had liens on their home because the contractor had failed to pay subcontractors, and they feared they would lose their home. For years, they struggled with the courts but the contractor, Mark LeBeaux, failed to pay restitution.
Then Dave Powers got the case. He’s a 23-year veteran probation officer, a colonel in the Army Reserves who’s served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Master at Arms for the probation officers’ union local. He pursued the case for over a year and, when LeBeaux failed to show for a court date, got an arrest warrant for him. You can read about Powers’ good work and the happy ending in the Sun Chronicle here.
Meanwhile, in Quincy, police had been looking for a suspect in the June 29 robbery of a local bank. The following day, the Patriot Ledger newspaper ran the suspect’s photo on their website. A local probation officer saw the photo Wednesday morning and recognized the suspect as one of his probationers. The probation officer (who has not been named by the press) called Quincy police to identify the suspect, and officers arrested the man that afternoon. You can see more on the story on the Patriot Ledger website here.
NAGE Victory Opens Door to Put Three 3% Raises Back on Table
June 8, 2010
The Labor Board agreed with NAGE that the Trial Court bargained in bad faith when it stripped out the economic proposals before the fact-finder issued a decision. NAGE fought hard on this point, and won.
NEPBA Cancels Your Contract Negotiations
May 3, 2010
Thanks to the extraordinarily selfish actions of the NEPBA, all contract negotiations for Trial Court employees are off, as of Friday.
NEPBA filed cards Friday knowing that you were expecting an offer from the Trial Court that would have given you the raises you deserve. They filed cards Friday knowing that as soon as they did, all negotiations would have to cease. They filed cards Friday knowing that you would be harmed financially … but they didn’t care. When NEPBA filed cards Friday for an election, they announced loud and clear that what matters most in NEPBA land is NEPBA.
We have told you that the decertification process for a group with the numbers, geographic issues and complexity of the Trial Court membership would take up to a year and possibly longer. NEPBA has been lying to you and telling you that it will take 4-6 weeks. Unfortunately, you’re going to find out how dishonest NEPBA is, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
We’re providing you NEPBA’s phone number (978-453-2500) so that you can call and thank them for making sure that you didn’t get an offer on Friday.
Then in October, when the Red Sox regular season is over, you can call them again when there hasn’t been an election and you’re still without a contract and haven’t gotten a raise.
Let us assure you … although NEPBA has shown you that they don’t care about you or your families, we do. We will continue to uphold our duty to represent you and will continue to file grievances and arbitrations on your behalf.
New Seniority List
July 14, 2009
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 617-376-0469 Attn: Laurie Connors.
Probation Officers (including Assistant Chief Probation Officer and 1st Assistant Chief Probation Officer) Seniority (updated July 2009)
Probation Officer Seniority Instructions
Probation Officer Seniority Appeal Form
Associate Probation Officers Seniority (updated July 2009)
Associate Probation Officer Seniority Instructions
Associate Probation Officer Seniority Appeal Form
Executive Board
President
Margaret Thompson
Suffolk Superior Court
mthompson@nage.org
Executive Vice President
Maria Simone
Ayer District Court
Executive Secretary
Raymond Loughlin
Worcester Superior Court
Treasurer
Michael King
Worcester Probate Court
Master-At-Arms
David Powers
Attleboro District Court
Superior Court Representative
Emilio Cruz
Worcester Superior Court
Juvenile Court Representative
Ambrozine Snowden
Springfield Juvenile Court
Associate Probation Officer at-Large
Ellie Ussow
Barnstable Probate Court
Probate Court Representative
Elizabeth Chabot
Worcester Probate & Family Court
District Court Representative
Robert Manning, Jr.
Waltham District Court
Probation Officer at-Large
Lynn Dadekian
Framingham District Court
