Smith 199 Mill Street Burlington, MA 01803 (781) 272-5348 Respondents Attorney: Virginia Casey Goscinak, Esq. Boston School Department 26 Court Street Boston, MA 02108 (617) 635-1576 Commissioners: Christopher C. Bowman DECISION The Appellant, Thomas F.
C. 25 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 411 Burlington MA 01803 (781)359-9777(tel) (781) 272-8692(fax) mdwyer@ddlaborlaw.com On Apr 22, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Connelly, David M. wrote: Matt, Im sorry this email slipped py my notice.
AFSCME, Council 93, AFL-CIO 7 Bedford Street Burlington, MA 01803 Brian Maser, Esq. Kopelman and Paige 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: MUP-18-6768 AFSCME, COUNCIL 93, AFL-CIO AND READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. McKenna and Mr.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records April 18, 2025 SPR25/0930 Kate CurtisBozio Records Access Officer Burlington Police Department 45 Center Street Burlington, MA 01803 Dear Ms. Curtis-Bozio: I have received the petition of Nicolette C.
See generally Town ofBurlington, 35 MLC 18, 2 27, MUP-04-4157 (June 30, 2008), affd sub nom. Town of Burlington v. Commonwealth 3 Employment Relations Board, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2014) (finding violation where 4 town negotiated a change in the priority for paid details in one bargaining units contract 5 but failed to take any action to reconcile its conflicting obligations with other bargaining 6 units).
See Town ofBurlington, 35 MLC 18 (2008) (rejecting employers argument that it was not required to bargain with union over unilateral change because the subject matter of the change was covered by another unions collective bargaining agreement); Sheriffs Office of Plymouth County, 39 MLC 41 (2012) (noting that conflicting obligations to two unions cannot be resolved by restricting the ability of either union to protect its interests or by subjugating
OF RELIEF REQUESTED 143, IAFF respectfully requests the citys charge be dismissed The city well knows it may raise any issue it deems appropriate to the panel hearing the contract dispute. e Lafferty & Lafferty 44 Mall Road Burlington, MA 01803 (781) 270-5000 (781) 270-4447 (FAX)
Lafferty & Lafferty 15 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 Re: MUPL-12-2259, Everett Firefighters Dear Mr. Mason and Mr. Lafferty: The City of Everett (City) seeks review of the October 19, 2012 dismissal of the The Commonwealth Employment above-referenced charge of prohibited practice.
Lafferty & Lafferty 15 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 Re: MUPL-12-2259, Everett Firefighters Dear Mr. Mason and Mr. Lafferty: On September 18, 2012, the City of Everett (City) filed a charge with the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) against the Everett Firefighters, Local 143, IAFF (Union), alleging that the Union had violated Sections 10(b)(1), (2), and (3) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law).
In the 2008 Town ofBurlington case, the Division adopted the long-standing federal precedent which holds that an employer has the legal obligation to bargain with a Union over the future retirement benefits of its current employees, notwithstanding the fact that a Unions right to bargain is limited to individuals who are actually employed in its bargaining unit.
School District, 36 MLC See Masconomet Regional 119 (2010) citing Town ofBurlington, 35 MLC (2008) (citing Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 404 U.S. 157, 180 (1971)). 18, 26 In regard to the third criteria, the City admits that it did not provide notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to making the change. See Fact Stipulation at 15.
Labor Relations . ce ce Town ofBurlington, 35 MLC Town of Dedham and Dedham App. Ct. 418, 419-420 Town of Hull, Town (1990)... 39 of MLC Town of 56 Mass. North App. Town of Provincetown, Town of Winthrop, Ware School Watertown Mass. 706, Weymouth Police 27, 30 17 ee (2008)........ Association, 28 n. 9 Mass. MLC 200, 202 MLC 1502, Local (1978) 1347 22 Committee, 9 1315 (1982).......... 22 (2002)............ M.L.C. (1996)..... 16 v.
Town ofBurlington, ee tw ee ee Labor Relations ... ccc cc 35 MLC 18, 25 cee eee nee ee 26 Commission, 443 eee cee 7 (2008)........ 10, 15 Town App. of Ct. Dedham and Dedham Police Association, 46 Mass. 418, 419-420 (1999)... .........0..........44. 20 Town of Hull, 39 MLC 27, Ludlow, 30 n. (2012)............. Town of (1990) Loc ec eee ee ee nee eee eee tenes 11, Town of 56 Mass. North App.
Town ofBurlington, ee tw ee ee Labor Relations ... ccc cc 35 MLC 18, 25 cee eee nee ee 26 Commission, 443 eee cee 7 (2008)........ 10, 15 Town App. of Ct. Dedham and Dedham Police Association, 46 Mass. 418, 419-420 (1999)... .........0..........44. 20 Town of Hull, 39 MLC 27, Ludlow, 30 n. (2012)............. Town of (1990) Loc ec eee ee ee nee eee eee tenes 11, Town of 56 Mass. North App.
Town ofBurlington v. McCarthy, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 914, 805 N.E.2d 88, 88 (2004). The Civil Service Commission may not substitute its opinion about an employment decision for that of the Appointing Authority.
Town ofBurlington, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 914, 915 (2004). An appointing authority should be able to enjoy more freedom in deciding whether to appoint someone as a newofficer than in disciplining an existing tenured one. City of Attleboro v. Mass. Civil Serv. Commn, BRCV2011-00734 (MacDonald. J.) citing Beverly at 191.
Town ofBurlington and another v. McCarthy, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 915 (2004). 9 Analysis This appeal presents three (3) issues: I. Was DOC permitted to consider all criminal record information related to the Appellant as part of its decision-making process? II. If so, was this information used properly in the decision-making process? III. Does the Appellants misconduct justify DOCs decision to bypass him for appointment as a CO I?