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.