Time Matters Messages To: Date Printed: Time Printed: 11/24/2015 12:56PM Printed By: KIM KENDRAH From: KENDRAH Sent: 11/24/2015 9:44AM RE: 15-4896 Hi Gwenn/Kim, Yesterday Kevin was able to mediate this case to settlement. e-mail this morning. Can you process this case and close? ! confirmed the Union's withdrawal of the charge via Thanks, Kendrah Page 1
lV] Yes L] 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 Ipswich Fire Fighters Union, Local 1913 19. 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Patrick N. Bryant 617-367-7200 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 21.
The Town Administrator and the bargaining committee for the Union, including Local President Firefighter Matt Cohen, engaged in informal discussions in the weeks leading up to the October 24, 2011 Special Town Meeting in an attempt to complete a settlement, with the specific goal of having an agreement funded at the October 24" Special Town Meeting.
On May 3, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the arbitration of the dismissal of a teacher. The parties had already exchanged proposals prior to that meeting. After several hours and multiple proposals, the parties reached an agreement that went to the School Committee for approval. The School Committee rejected the agreement and reverted back to the proposal it made prior to the May 3 negotiations.
Here, the Town has determined that release of the October 3, 2023 executive session minutes would jeopardize the Towns litigating position given that the December 29, 2023 Settlement Order of Dismissal in the lawsuit at issue in the executive session was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement.... Should the settlement agreement not be adhered to, the case may be reopened.
Remedy Requested Removal of the letter of expectation from Julias personnel file Signature of Grievant Signature of LEA Representative Date 1 EXHIBIT SETTLEMENT 2 AGREEMENT This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made by and between Paul Ash, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools, the Lexington Public Schools ("Lexington"), the Lexington Education Association (LEA) and Julia Finley (Ms. Finley). WHEREAS the Lexington, LEA, and Ms.
In a settlement agreement executed on February 26, 2014, by Ms. Finley, the Lexington Education Association (LEA) and Superintendent Paul Ash; the Parties reached a full and final settlement of the grievance and all matters in connection with the Letter of Expectations. 14. Per the terms of the settlement agreement, the LEA and Ms. Finley withdrew the grievance and agreed not to raise any issues related to the grievance in any other forum. 15.
The Settlement brought finality to the Grievance and eliminated any documents relating thereto, including the Letter of Expectations detailing numerous areas in which Ms. Finley needed to improve in her work performance. Lexington did nothing to restrain, coerce or interfere with Ms. Finleys legal or contractual rights. To the contrary, Dr. Ash attempted to accommodate Ms.
The School Committee is the Town's collective bargaining representative for the purpose of dealing with school employees. ' Prior to the in-person investigation, the School Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing, in part, that the Association is precluded under the parties settlement agreement, discussed below, from filing any claim that is based on the October 13, 2013 grievance.
The Association orally Following each timely filed post- On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of witnesses, | make the following findings: Stipulations of Fact ' Prior to the in-person investigation, the School Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing, in part, that the Association is precluded under the parties settlement agreement, discussed below, from filing any claim that is based on the October 13, 2013 grievance
Srednicki: With the Department's assistance through Mediation, the Lawrence Administrators Association and the Lawrence School Committee reached settlement upon the terms of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of that settlement, the above-referenced Prohibited Practice Charge was also settled.
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. Y INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY O 39. The Charging Party is an Individual (I), Employee Organization (O), Employer (E): 42. Telephone Number 617-723-8440 41. Representative to contact Colin R. Confoey, Esq. 40.
Settlement Agreement, and the Receiver has satisfied the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I. Background Facts In January 2010, the Legislature passed, and Governor Patrick signed, the Achievement Gap Act, G.L. c. 69, 1K. See Exhibit A attached.
V1 | Yes No Note: The Division 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 Divison mediator for settlement discussions. INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 17. Name OPEIU, Local 6 19. 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Luke Liacos, Esq. 617-388-1976 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 21.
V1 ] Yes No Note: The Division 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 Divison mediator for settlement discussions. INFORMATION ON CHARGING PARTY 17. Name OPEIVU, Local 6 19. 18. Representative to contact 20. Telephone Number Luke Liacos, Esq. 617-388-1976 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 21.
Ultimately, on August 31, 2004, NAGE and the School Committee entered into a Settlement Agreement which resolved all issues between them in connection with 3 the reorganization plan and the concerns raised about health insurance and other contractual benefits. Among the requirements of the settlement was that all employees would sign individual releases. Of the 43 affected employees, two refused to sign such releases, including the Appellant.