Eustace, Kimberly (DLR) From: Harrington, Brian (DLR) Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 11:37 AM To: Ce: Subject: Attachments: Efile DLR (EOL); Kelley, Gwenn (EOL); Eustace, Kimberly (DLR) Feldman-Boshes, Erica (DLR) Settlement ARB-15-4560 settlement agreement.pdf Gwenn and Kim, Was lucky enough to finish up what Heather did and get a settlement today. This case can now be closed. Thanks, Brian Brian K.
The Union and the University negotiated a settlement agreement, which Dr. Sinapah reviewed on April 25. The terms included Dr. Sinapah being given paid administrative leave through August 31, 2014 and a full release of all claims by Dr. Sinapah against the University. Dr. Sinapah expressed concerns over the draft settlement * Dr.
While the paid administrative leave was pending in April, the Union actively sought to negotiate a settlement at Dr. Sinapahs behest in order to avoid the suspension. Although Dr. Sinapah had agreed to a settlement, she ultimately reneged on her agreement and was then predictably suspended. ? After the Dismissal issued, Dr. Sinapah inquired as to the Investigators exhibit list. The list maintained by the Union matches the Investigators.
In the beginning of April 2014, the plaintiff first turned to her union, the United Auto Workers AFL-CIO Local 2322/Postdoctoral Researchers Organization (union), for help.3 Representatives from the union negotiated a settlement proposal before formal discipline was imposed on April 30, 2014, and a second proposal in the fall of 2014.4 The terms and language of the proposed agreements were ultimately not acceptable to the plaintiff.
Note: The DLR may decline to issue a complaint unless reasonable settlement efforts have been made by the charging party 456 CMR 15.04(1). The Division may refer the charge to a Division mediator for settlement discussions. INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 39. The Charging Party is an Individual (I), Employee Organization (O), |I Employer (E): 40. Name 41. Representative to contact Sylvie Sinapah ! 42.
Harrington did not apply the DLRs traditional mixed-motive tripartite analytical framework, which is the adequate legislative scheme to examine the Section 10(b)(1) violation at issue. .............................. 19 Table of Contents 2 Massachusetts Appeals Court Case: 2019-P-0390 Filed: 7/3/2020 9:30 PM Based on the AFSCME case (or SUPL-2490 charge) precedent, the points of contacts or the offer of a settlement considered by Atty.
Ct. 9 Thus, to decide this matter, both the to consider the relevant information that both Sinapah and the Union provided about the incident giving rise to the discipline, the Unions settlement efforts on Sinapahs behalf, and the Unions decision-making process, including its ultimate determination that its chances of winning at arbitration were too small to justify moving forward to arbitration.
The Union also amended the charge to add an allegation that the Town repudiated a January 9, 2019 settlement agreement. 2 | held the record open until June 12, 2019 to allow the Union to provide supplemental evidence. On June 11, 2019, the Union submitted an affidavit addressing the impacts of the alleged change. | informed the Town that I would keep the record open until June 17, 2019 if it wished to respond to the Unions submission.
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT Pursuant to 456 CMR 13.03(1)(c), the parties move that the Department of Labor Relations dismiss the complaint in the above matter, on the ground that they have reached a settlement that fully disposes of the allegations in the complaint. Presently the matter is scheduled for a pre-hearing conference on December 5, 2019, and a hearing on February 6, 2020.
Admitted. 8 Respondent admits that, on January 9, 2019, Respondent and the Union signed a settlement agreement to resolve the charge referred to in Paragraph 7. Further answering, Respondent states that the agreement speaks for itself. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. 11. Respondent admits that Respondent and the Union agreed to not meet on January 28, 2019. Otherwise, denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16 Denied. 17. Denied.
Rocheleau requested "[a]ny/all documents related to payments made for legal settlements and judgments involving the [EOEEA], its subagencies*, or employees from Jan. 1, 2015 through present date. This is [sic] includes but is not limited to settlements/agreements/ arbitration made both in and out of court." Mr.
Rocheleau requested "[ a]ny/all documents related to payments made for legal settlements and judgments involving the [EOEEA], its subagencies*, or employees from Jan. 1, 2015 through present date. This is [sic] includes but is not limited to settlements/agreements/ arbitration made both in and out of court." Mr.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUP-18-6529 . In the interest of moving forward, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Commissioner of Administration and Finance/Department of Conservation and Recreation (Employer) and AFSCME Council 93 (Union) agree not to litigate Department of Labor Relations (DLR) case number SUP-18-6529. . The parties expressly understand and agree that this is a settlement to resolve a disputed claim.
[J Yes No The Union remains open to settlement Note: The DLR may decline to issue a complaint uniess reasonable settlement efforts have been made by the charging party. 456 CMR 15.04/71). INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY Name AFSCME 19. Council 93 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Joseph Delorey 617-367-6035 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 21.
Soon after she heard the settlement proposal, she met with Chief Leary and explained the proposal to him. write up the proposal as a potential settlement. She also asked him to He did this. The Mayor at this point had no . 14 Leary vy. Weymouth CS-12-5 (D-11-272, CSC) knowledge of the terms of the proposed settlement.
Herman requested copies of"[a]ny and all settlement agreements, separation agreements, and/or the like reached with present and/or past MassHousing employees in 2015 and 2016." Previous appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR16/484 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (August 10, 2016).
The settlement agreement is dated 4/1/22. The settlement agreement provides in pertinent part: "In compliance with Article XIX(F)(3)(a)(1) and (3)(b)(2) which provides in part, 'The University shall provide, to an applicant for salary review, an explanation for decision at each level of review,' the universitys response shall include the consideration that led to the outcome of the faculty members application."
Both parties submitted post-hearing briefs. 1 The Commission acknowledges the assistance of Law Clerk Ashley Francisque in the preparation of this decision. 1 After the hearing, it was suggested to the parties to consider settlement rather than proceeding with the case. The parties reported they had reached a settlement and the Commission dismissed the case, which was to be effective on a future date after Officer DeMellos retirement.