Tags
Agencies
Show All
Displaying items 261-270 of 8624 in total
Civil Service Commission Decisions
DeMello, Walter v. Town of Fairhaven 7/12/12
1 document · · Civil Service Commission ·
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.
1 document · · Civil Service Commission ·
On March 31, 2023, the parties memorialized their agreement about the terms of the remedy in their Class Action Settlement Agreement (Agreement).
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").
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Displaying items 261-270 of 8624 in total