Search help (advanced operators, examples)
Learn more
Tags
Agencies
Show All
Displaying items 261-270 of 8612 in total
Department of Labor Relations Cases
Suzete B. Costa / OPEIU, Local 6
13 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
Under the terms of settlement that he negotiated, Ms. Costa was to receive a promotion within her department and back pay. and Mr. Noel informed the grievant of the settlement. Mr. Noel also explained during the investigation that a tentative agreement had been reached with the Trial Court as ofNovember 28, 2016, but the agreement had not been signed off on by the Trial Court's Human Resources Department. Since Mr.
However, Business Manager George Noel was able nonetheless to negotiate a settlement with the Trial Court. Under the terms of settlement, Ms. Costa was to receive a promotion within her department and back pay. Mr. Noel informed the grievant of the settlement. Ms. Costa was not happy with the amount of back pay in the settlement and filed the current charge against the Union. II. The Charge Lacks Merit.
Following the step 3 hearing in July 2016, the union and the trial court reached a settlement agreement. The union forwarded the terms of the settlement to the plaintiff in March 2017, which included a position reclassification to a higher grade and pay level as well as back wages. The plaintiff did not agree with the terms of the settlement or the lack of communication with her during its formation.
The settlement included $607.59 in backpay. On August 4, 2017, Costa filed the present charge of prohibited practice. She alleged that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation to her and caused her economic harm by the manner in which it processed and settled her grievance.
On March 13, 2017, Noel responded that he did have the details of the settlement just not with (him) as he was tied up in Worcester. He did, however, indicate that the settlement involved back pay. (R.A. 134) Having once again heard nothing from Noel, Costa e-mailed him on March 23, 2017, March 24, 2017 and March 28, 2017 demanding a response.
On March 13, 2017, Noel responded that he did have the details of the settlement just not with (him) as he was tied up in Worcester. He did, however, indicate that the settlement involved back pay. (R.A. 134) Having once again heard nothing from Noel, Costa e-mailed him on March 23, 2017, March 24, 2017 and March 28, 2017 demanding a response.
The Board determined that Union periodically updated Costa on the status of her grievance and its efforts to negotiate a settlement. [Id.] The Board found no evidence to support a finding that the Unions failure to advise Costa of the settlement terms in advance was improperly motivated. [Id.] Absent such evidence, the Board reasoned that the Union was entitled under the Law to settle the grievance without Costas consent.
On March 13,2017, Noel responded that he did have the details of the settlement "just not with (him)" as he was tied up in Worcester. He did, however, indicate that the settlement involved back pay. A copy ofNoel' s e-mail to this extent it attached to Costa's Affidavit as Exhibit "36" . 43. Having once again heard nothing from Noel, Costae-mailed him on March 23, 2017, March 24, 2017 and March 28, 2017 demanding a response.
By email on March 13, 2017, Noel stated that he did have the details of the grievance settlement, but that he did not have the information with him, as he was in Worcester, MA at the time. Noel also mentioned that the grievance settlement entailed back pay. II When Costa did not hear from Noel on or after March 13, 2017, she sent, him emails on March 23, 2017, March 24, 2017 and March 28, 2017.
[v] Yes a No 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). INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 17. Name 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Suzete B. Costa Richard B. Reiling a 19. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) a 617-412-4291 21.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
SEIU, LOCAL 888 / Mashpee, Town of
3 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
Sn SERVICE EMPLOYEES | INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 388, Nee shoscesoasensenttesseossoossseneses SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (Agreement) is entered into by and between Servios Employees International Union, Local 888 (Unica) and the Town of Mashpee (Town)(collectively,the parties").
Department of Labor Relations Cases
SEIU, Local 509 / Comm. of Mass/Commr. of Admin. & Finance
1 document · · Department of Labor Relations ·
LQDSURKLELWHGSUDFWLFHZLWKLQWKH PHDQLQJRI0DVVDFKXVHWWV*HQHUDO/DZ&KDSWHU(6HFWLRQ V HQWHUDOODSSURSULDWHVHFWLRQVVXEVHFWLRQV 10(a)(5) and 10(a)(1) )DLOLQJWRVSHFLI\DQDSSURSULDWHVHFWLRQVXEVHFWLRQPD\UHVXOWLQWKHGLVPLVVDORIWKHFKDUJH 6XPPDU\RIEDVLVRI&KDUJH EHVSHFLILFDVWRQDPHVGDWHVDGGUHVVHVHWF The Commonwealth, via the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), has repudiated the attached settlement
Department of Labor Relations Cases
William Curtis Conner / Mass. Society of Professors/FSU/MTA/MEA
6 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
Introduction The Charging Party, Professor Williams Curtis Conner, alleges that the Respondent, Massachusetts Society of Professors/MTA/NEA (Respondent or Union), breached its duty of fair representation by entering into a grievance settlement that could have the ultimate effect of overruling the judgment of Professor Connor, and certain other of his colleagues in the Chemical Engineering Department, concerning whether a comment on the evaluations
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 DPC's 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 MSP filed a response on July 7, The charge alleged that the Union violated the Law by entering into a settlement agreement with the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (University) to resolve a grievance filed by four other Union members concerning negative comments the four faculty members had received on their Annual Faculty Report and Evaluation of Professional Activities (AFR) from the Department of Chemical Engineerings Departmental Personnel
s office did not provide the DPC information or access to the discussion prior to their proposed settlement. The Union neglected repeated DPC requests to take part or even be informed of the grievance discussion. This violates US labor law in that the Union flagrantly breached their responsibility of fair representation in a non-arbitrary manner. As described in Belanger v. Matteson, 115 R.I. 332, ?
Department of Labor Relations Cases
Andover Education Association / Andover School Committee
7 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
By email on January 9, 2023, the Union informed the DLR that the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations, had reached a settlement in theory, did not 2 Ruling on Motion to Reopen (contd) MUP-20-8038 anticipate moving forward with the hearing, and anticipate[d] having a final agreement within the next week or so. By that email, the Union also stated that counsel had experienced a medical situation.
Since early January 2023 and continuing through April 12, 2023, the Union and the Andover School Committee had been in settlement negotiations. Id. The parties believed to have reached an agreement in theory and Counsel for the School Committee sent a draft settlement for review to Counsel for the Union on March 7, 2023. Id.
It also stated that while the parties had reached an agreement on the material terms of a settlement, it required further confirmation from the Association. By email on January 25, 2023, Hearing Officer Davis notified the parties that the hearing would be rescheduled, and that they must provide a status update by January 27, 2023.
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. 2 INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 39. The Charging Party is an Individual (I), Employee Organization (O), Employer (E): O 40. Name Andover Education Association 42. Telephone Number 617-603-1432 41.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
Southbridge Police Association / Southbridge, Town of
2 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
The Parties have settled the matter (please find attached the settlement agreement). Thank you. Very truly yours, Jennifer Rubin Cc: Tim Norris, Esq.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
SEIU, Local 888 / Mass. State Lottery
4 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
Some of the functions that Asset Protection took over from Sales included sales agent license revocations, recovery of Lottery equipment, final and mock settlements, and voluntary license terminations. 8.
Prior to the announcement at the labor management meeting the Union's understanding of the structure of the Lottery as represented by the Employer and reflected on the Lotterys website was the existence of a single office located in the Woburn region. in reliance on the existence of a single office, the Union entered into settlement agreements that acknowledged the existence of a single Woburn office and not the existence of a Woburn East office and
Some of the functions that Asset Protection took over from Sales included sales agent license revocations, recovery of Lottery equipment, final and mock settlements, and voluntary license terminations. 8.
On or around December 7, 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (Agreement) concerning the suspension of Michael Deluca, an Asset Protection Department employee from the Worcester region. The Agreement states: The Lottery further agrees to reassign Mr. Deluca to the Woburn Regional Office as an Asset Protection Field Representative. The parties agree that upon the assignment of Mr.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
Classified Staff Union, MTA/NEA / University of Massaschusetts
3 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
One of the agreements cited pertains to a contract settlement with the Commonwealth where funds were appropriated in advance of the settlement of this contract. This agreement enjoyed a status that was in accord with Secretarys Shors statements. The University by contrast, remained without any bargaining reserves in contradiction to Secretary Shors statements.
Charging party has asserted that the specific reserve established by St. 2015, c. 10 for the University is intended for future bargaining settlements and is independent of the legislative validation created by section 65. The reserve established by section 2 line item 1599-4299 provides a partial reserve for the University of $2.2 million for agreements that have not yet been ratified by the general court.
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). INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 17. Name Classified and Technical Union/MTA/NEA 19. 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Matthew D. Jones, Esq. (617) 878-8283 21.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
Kathleen Leddie / Comm. of Mass/Commr. of Admin. & Finance
2 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
Fo (eSperd SAYS to turete fre le He/ Z heve Dimer [wveluded Document Settlement - Plas fo Sigal imacdeetly QO, Less Aa tr ar/ es Pear axa My Anid Contpet. They ASK Ee 112. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH and MASSACHUSETTS NURSES ASSOCIATION, Kathleen T.
In your charge, you allege the Commonwealth violated the Law when it terminated your employment in reliance on past discipline that should have been removed from your file pursuant to a previous settlement agreement with the Department of Public Health (DPH). However, the allegations contained in your charge against the Commonwealth are untimely.
Department of Labor Relations Cases
BOSTON POLICE SUPERIOR OFFICERS FED. / BOSTON, CITY OF
18 documents · · Department of Labor Relations ·
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HAS NO RELATION TO THE RIGHT OF ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER NON-DELEGABLE RIGHTS . 25 ARGUMENT . . . A, The 2005 Settlement Agreement Establishes That Certain Work Belongs to the Federations' Bargaining 26 Unit B. The 2005 Settlement Agreement Does Not Relate to the Level of Services Offered By the City . 30 C. The 2005 Settlement Agreement Does Not Relate to ths Deployment of Police Of . 33 IV.
Since the settlement agreement does not involve any work ever performed by a SENA bargaining unit member, the Citys arguments regarding SENA are irrelevant. Second, as to the Detectives, there has been no finding by the Hearing Officer that the work at issue in this case is the exclusive work of the Detectives.
THE JULY 19, 2005 SETTLEMENT, LIEUTENANT LINSKEYS 2006 PROMOTION AND THE MUNICIPAL POLICE REORGANIZATION 30.
The parties resolved the complaint in MUP-04-4191 through a settlement agreement signed on or about July 19, 2005. [Jt. Ex. 21; Jt. Ex. 1.]
Whether discretion the in its CERB the language the of Boston circumstances. arbitrary decision enforced City was of the and 2005 (hereinafter, its and capricious remedy settlement the City) when or it abused strictly agreement against under of all the STATEMENT In this 11 and order of M.G.L. c. the CERB Officers that matter, 30A on Exhibit 1, or into On entered a a from favor about July 19, a settlement settlement page 2005, In alieged the that that
First, she found that the City unlawfully repudiated a July 19, 2005 Settlement Agreement requiring, inter alia, that an held assignment in the Special Police Unit (SPU) that then Sergeant Detective Danie] Linskey from April 17, 2004 to April 12, 2006 (Stipulated Facts J 19), would revert to the Federation upon Linskeys voluntary or involuntary departure from such assignment.
MUP-04-4191 through a settlement agreement signed on or about July 19, 2005. 22. On December 4, 1996, Hearing Officer Susan Atwater determined that the City had violated the BPPAs 150E rights by expanding the jurisdiction of the Boston Municipal Police to include Bostons public housing developments through the MOU. Boston v. BPPA, [23 MLC 133] (1996).
. - Representing the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation DECISION ON APPEAL OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION On September 12, 2011, a duly-designated (Department) hearing officer issued a decision in this matter.' that the City of Boston (City) repudiated of Labor Department Relations The hearing officer held a settlement agreement (2005 Agreement) between the City and the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation (Union) but did not unlawfully
After the parties executed the April 29, 2003 settlement agreement, Doe secured new employment in slightly less than one and ono-half years.
Through a settlement And you can tell me agreement. how that settlement agreement about? GILLESPIE: which City 2010 was GILLESPIE: came v Yes. And POOLE: 20, Federation Yes. OK. POOLE: July Thats GILLESPIE: POOLE: Officers It took is an into bargained all-encompassing account back and a forth settlement agreement cases were number of with City the and that the Commissioner.
While paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement in MUP-04-4191 refers to the assignment of Commander, Special Police Division, the Federations written submission in this matter refers to a second-in-command assignment. See Unions Written Submission, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13. According to the ordinary meaning of the terms, the second-in-command is not the commander. 14.
. | | i I The City Hall Security Assignment Was Never_a Captains Position and the Work Did not Belong to the Federation Exclusively Prior to the 2005 Settlement Agreement, The Linskey underlying case concerned the assignment to City Hall Security from April of Sergeant 17, 2004 to April Detective 12, 2006.
Commonwealth Relations Employment Board, Motion for Now Board it Leave comes (Board) leave brief to in the therefor, the question of The No. to File a Brief a of the Court Law in the Commonwealth and moves file a Lieu of this Honorable memorandum Board is of subject of the by the 30, 2012 Board affirmation Labor Relations (DLR) Hearing held that the settlement and the City agreement Boston of Boston (2005 Police violation of a Officer Superior of
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 24, 2006, the Union filed a charge of prohibited practice with the former Labor Relations Commission, now known as the Department of Labor Relations (DLR), alleging that the City had violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by repudiating the terms of a settlement agreement dated July 19, 2005 (2005 Agreement) and by transferring bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit personnel.
. - Representing the Boston Police Superior ' Officers' Federation Qt$, jjalipilEPPSF H arr 1 m_ .rt DEQIsION On September 12, 2011, a duly-designated Department of Labor Relations 2 (Department) hearing officer issued a decision In this motter. 1 The hearing officer held 3 that the Cy of Boston (City) repudiated a settlement agreement (2005 Agreement) . 4 between the City and the Boston Police Superior Offloers' Federation (Union) but did 5 not unlawfully
Displaying items 261-270 of 8612 in total