Summary of basis of Charge (be specific as to names, dates, addresses, etc) On or about February 22, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve SUP 11-1286. (see attached) The Department repudiated this agreement when it eliminated a Grade 14 position in the Fishing Area in March of 2013 before it was ever occupied.
Furthermore, the notice to the Department simply states that the Charging Party withdraws ... the case as settled without further explanation as to the terms of the parties settlement. The settlement agreement is a document which speaks for itself. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. 8. Denied.
In addition, the Parties are directed to confer as to whether they are willing to engage the services of a DLR Mediator for possible settlement. Utilization of a mediator will not delay the commencement of the Hearing. 1.
Any settlement agreement, including any drafts of any settlement agreement not protected by the attorney-client privilege, between the City and KME or Navistar; and All documents evidencing correspondence, including any emails, voicemails or other electronic media, between the City and KME or Navistar concerning settlement or dismissal of City of Boston v. Kovatch Mobile Equipment, et al., 1784CV00183 (2016).
The ATA ratified the settlement agreements for all four units on November 16, 2021. The School Committee ratified the settlement agreements for all four units at their School Committee meeting on the evening of November 17, 2021. The settlement agreements were signed by both parties on December 1, 2021. Also on December 1, 2021, the ATA inquired about when the payment of retroactive wages would occur.
On September 13, 2021, the parties reached a settlement on successor agreements for all four(4) Units (Teachers, Administrative/Technical Assistants, Paraprofessionals, Custodians). The Agreement included a cost-of-living adjustment retroactive to July 1, 2020. On November 16 and 17, respectively, the Union and the School Committee ratified the Settlement Agreements.
The parties did not reach a settlement and the case was remanded back to me for determination. Based on the evidence presented during the investigation, I have decided to dismiss the Charges in their entirety for the reasons explained below. 1 The Union filed one Charge on behalf of each of the four bargaining units under the Unions representation.
NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PROVOST?S OFFICE AND MSP UNION: On 15 November 2013, Associate Provost John Bryan informed current Chemical Engineering Departmental Personnel Committee, DPC, that the Provost?
The Charging Party filed the instant charge in response to this settlement. Analysis 2 Gallagher also met on at least one occasion with a faculty member who later joined the DPC who agreed with the DPCs comments. Gallagher unsuccessfully also sought on more than one occasion to meet with other member of the DPC without success. * Some members of the DPC changed from the prior academic year.
The essence of the charging partys claim is that the University and the exclusive bargaining representative repudiated the parties collective bargaining agreement by entering into a grievance settlement which interfered with the charging partys interests and overrode what he believed to be long settled practice and policy at the University. An individual has no standing to challenge alleged contractual violations before the Board.
Nemo TOWN TOWN OF ANDOVERS RESPONSE TO CHARGE In response to the Union the Town of Andover responds as follows: I, FACTS The Town Firefighters, admits that on or about June Local 1658 (Union) entered into 16, 2009, the Town a settlement overpayment of 106 hours of vacation time to Firefighter Byerley.
In addition to the repudiation of the 2010 Settlement, the Union also alleges that the Sheriff failed to bargain over the installation of surveillance cameras on the interior and exterior of the Suffolk County House of Corrections, in March of 2010. However, as described below, the Union filed a charge in Case No. SUP-10-5578 based on that same allegation in April 2010.
. | Summary of basis of Charge (be specific as to names, dates, addresses, etc) AFSCME Council 93 and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office entered into the attached settlement agreement. Since entering into the agreement the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office has failed to bargain to resolution or impact over the issue of cameras in the workplace.
On June 27, the Complainant, as counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, proffered a settlement offer to the Board. The next available time for the Board to meet to discuss the Complainants settlement offer was the next morning, June 28.
By letter to King dated September 2, 2016, Letttiere communicated the Possible Outcomes of Arbitration and/or Settlement as a follow-up to their August 22, 2016 preparatory meeting.
Refute an AFT settlement agreement dated 2. 23. 17 (BTU) and 3.1.17 (BPS) and reached by parties. Boston Public School Committee and Boston Teacher's Union , Local 66 My charge is in relation to | an unfair relationship between my former employer and the public sector and an issue with state and | local authorities regarding unpaid wages and wage claims against my former employer.
This was done with full knowledge that vacation leave time was accruing in excess of Officer Belliveaus maximum bankable limit and that his excess time was being lost as evidenced by the request made on his behalf by the Union on April 15, 2016, nearly two months before the execution of the Settlement Agreement.
Furthermore, the Towns argument that the Union and Belliveau expressly agreed to relinquish any rights to file this grievance bascd on the settlements waiver language is weukened by the existence of express preclusions contained elsewhere in the agreement. In United Steelworkers of America y.
Herman requested all settlement agreements, exit agreements, separation agreements, and/or the like executed between Boston Public Schools and its employees for the period May 1, 2020 to the present. Prior Appeal The requested records were the subject of a prior appeal. See SPR22/1321 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (June 13, 2022). Unsatisfied with the Citys further response, Mr.