Union Apportionment of Settlement Once it reached a tentative agreement with the Committee, the Union. held a general membership meeting on the evening of June 21, 2011. The meeting. lasted over three hours. During the meeting the Union described the settlement package and there was a heated debate regarding would be eligible to receive a settlement payment.
The Committee offered a settlement of $300,000 paid over two years with two months of health insurance. The Union counter offered a settlement of all claims for four months of health insurance and $497,000.* Shortly thereafter, Connolly contacted The meeting ended without an agreement. Canzoneri to accept the settlement offer on behalf of the Committee.
During the meeting the Union described the settlement package and there was a heated debate regarding who was eligible to receive a settlement payment. During the meeting some of the Union membership, who worked as substitute Bus Drivers (commonly described as spares) argued that they should receive part of the settlement. Some members of the Union, including Levin, were opposed to substitute Bus Drivers receiving a portion of the settlement.
During the meeting the Union described the settlement package and there was a heated debate regarding who was eligible to receive a settlement payment.
On the morning of January 14, 2020, the arbitrator asked if the parties were 10 interested in discussing settlement. The parties agreed to explore the possibility of 11 settlement and to postpone the hearing until February 7, 2020.
On the initial arbitration date of January 14, 2020, the arbitrator inquired if the parties were interested in discussing settlement, at which time the parties agreed to explore the possibility of settlement. As a result of those preliminary discussions, the parties agreed to schedule another date for the arbitration hearing in the event that settlement discussions were not successful. The hearing was rescheduled for February 7, 2020.
The Employer bargained in bad faith because it reached agreement on a grievance settlement regarding nine weeks of lost vacation time for 32 Institutional School Teachers working in the DOC, and then failed to execute that settlement agreement.
On December 9, 2020, the investigator issued a Complaint which alleges that the DOC and the Union reached a final settlement agreement regarding a grievance, and that the DOC subsequently refused to execute the settlement agreement, thereby repudiating the settlement agreement in violation of Section 10(a)(5) of the Law. On December 18, 2021, the DOC filed an Answer to the Complaint. On August 18, 2021 the DOC filed the Motion.
On July 2, 2020, the DOC refused to execute the settlement agreement described in paragraph 5. . 7. By the conduct described in paragraph 6, the DOC has repudiated the Teachers Vacation grievance settlement agreement described in paragraph 5. 8. By the conduct described in paragraphs 6 and 7, the DOC has failed to bargain in good faith by repudiating a settlement agreement in violation of Section 10(a)(5) of the Law. 9.
(6HFWLRQ V HQWHUDOODSSURSULDWHVHFWLRQVVXEVHFWLRQV 10(a)(5) )DLOLQJWRVSHFLI\DQDSSURSULDWHVHFWLRQVXEVHFWLRQPD\UHVXOWLQWKHGLVPLVVDORIWKHFKDUJH 6XPPDU\RIEDVLVRI&KDUJH EHVSHFLILFDVWRQDPHVGDWHVDGGUHVVHVHWF In or about early July 2020, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Corrections, through its labor relations department, violated Chapter 150 E, Section 10(a)(5) by failing to execute a negotiated settlement
Insofar as the DOC denies that parties reached a final agreement to settle the grievance, the DOC denies that it refused to execute a settlement agreement. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. 9. Denied.
.@3711 requirements conceming UFFI imposed upon residential sellers by statute and applicable regulations; (d) the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and other financial affidavi ts and agreements aS may reasonably be required by the lender or lenders ationney : (e) the citizenship and residency af SELLER as required by law: and (f) informa tion required to permit the closing agent to report the transaction to the Internal Revenue Service, At the lime of
Fitzgerald as to the Settlement Agreement do not change the above analysis. Mr. Fitzgerald points to several factors that he alleges made it unclear to him that he was waiving his grievance when he signed the Settlement Agreement: (1) An email sent by counsel for MassDOT, Attorney Peter Mimmo, summarizing the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) an oral statement by Attorney Mimmo indicating that he was not aware Mr.
I find it is difficult to comprehend how anybody can think that the Settlement Agreement pertains to my grievance after reading the above statements. CONTACTING A FORMER MOSES ATTORNEY At this point I respectfully ask if it was appropriate for the subcommittee to contact a former MOSES Attorney to discuss my Settlement Agreement.
Fitzgerald entered into a settlement agreement with MassDOT to resolve Mr. Fitzgeralds classification appeal. See Charge, Exh. 1 Settlement Agreement. 1 Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Mr. Fitzgerald was reclassified as a Bridge Inspector III, i.e. Job Group 25A, Step 8 under the CBA, effective March 7, 2019. See id.
The Settlement Agreement also granted Fitzgerald an additional wage step increase to which he was not otherwise entitled. The fourth bullet point, above, was memorialized in paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement as: In consideration of the above, Mr. Fitzgerald and the Union shall voluntarily and intelligently waive any right or entitlement Mr.
I was told that it was due to a settlement agreement (exhibit #1) that I signed with Mass DOT on 4/9 /19. The Settlement Agreement that I signed with Mass DOT was pertaining to the classification Appeal that I filled in 2013 (the same time my grievance was filed). The settlement agreement upgraded my position from a Bridge Inspector II to a Bridge Inspector Ill within the MassDOT Dive Team.
Cease and desist; make member whole for anv and all losses caused by City's unlawful action; execute and implement the settlement agreement; and all other relief that is just and proper. Have you attempted to settle this case? [] Yes D No If not, why not? This Charge arises out of the City's failure to execute and implement the terms of a settlement agreement.
Later, on April 8, 2020, Monfalcone accepted the proposed terms of the settlement on behalf of the MMEA and asked Davine to reduce the agreement to writing. 9. On April 14, 2020, Davine emailed Monfalcone a draft settlement agreement 10. The MMEA subsequently proposed certain amendments to the draft settlement agreement. 11.
Admit that the City has not executed or implemented a settlement. Deny the remaining characterizations in paragraph 1 7. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 2 1259330.vl AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Charging Party fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT | ne The parties have submitted to the Court a j ointat Motion for Final Approval of | Partial Settlement Agreement (the Motion. The Motion seeks final. approval. pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.-P. 23(c) of the parties Classs Action Settlement Agreement (the .
On or about May 14, 2002, following the third step of the contractual grievance procedure, the Union and the Employer resolved the grievance through a settlement agreement (2002 Settlement Agreement). The 2002 Settlement Agreement maintained the three-day suspension imposed on CD by the 2001 Discipline Letter, but relaxed the restrictions of the 2001 Discipline letter on work sites and voluntary overtime.