Attorney Connor and Attorney Choi work tirelessly to ensure that the contractual rights of bargaining unit members are upheld in the workplace. Here are some favorable labor decisions that were won for our clients:
UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION V. TOWN OF HADLEY
Arbitration Awarded: December 9, 2020
In arbitration between United Public Service Employees Union and the Town of Hadley, Attorneys Connor and Choi argued on behalf of the Union for their contractual right to accumulate compensatory time up to forty (40) hours in lieu of overtime payments. In the grievants’ new contracts, there was a provision that allowed bargaining members to accumulate compensatory time up to forty hours in lieu of overtime payments. The Town of Hadley’s Department of Public Works Director disputed the Union’s interpretation of the contract and rejected the two grievants’ request to accrue compensatory time. The Union argued that the Town violated the article in their contractual agreement.
On behalf of the Union, Attorneys Connor and Choi sought and were awarded a cease and desist from denying bargaining unit employees’ requests to accumulate Compensatory Time in lieu of overtime payments. Additionally, the arbiter decided that the Town of Hadley, in fact, violated the parties’ contract when it denied the greivants’ requests.
UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION v. City of Springfield
Arbitration Awarded: December 17, 2020
Attorneys Connor and Choi represented the United Public Service Employees Union in arbitration against the City of Springfield for a grievant that was not promoted to a bargaining unit position and a less qualified and less senior candidate was selected for the position instead. Attorneys Connor and Choi argued that the parties’ contract required the City to promote the most qualified senior candidate for the position as long as they meet the minimum qualifications, whereas the person hired for this position did not even meet the minimum requirements.
The arbiter sustained the Union’s grievance and declared that the selected candidate be removed from this position, and that the Grievant be promoted to the position and made whole. The City was ordered to pay the Grievant the higher rate of pay for the new position from the date that the position was filled until the date of their appointment.
UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION v. City of Springfield
Arbitration Awarded: February 3, 2022
Attorneys Connor and Choi challenged the discharge of a bargaining unit member to arbitration, where they successfully argued that there was no just cause for discharge and that the Grievant must be made whole for his suffered damages and losses. The City had double-booked the Grievant’s office space for training and did not seek to solve this issue by relocating either the training or the Grievant’s office space temporarily. The Grievant responded out of fear that they might contract COVID due to close proximity of other individuals during the training. Additionally, the Union argued that the City terminated the Grievant as an act of retaliation because he successfully challenged a previous discharge and his prior Union activity.
The arbiter found that the Grievant was not terminated for just cause and ordered him to be reinstated to his employment and be made whole with back pay and interim earnings. The Grievant’s discharge was reduced to a written warning.
Vincent Vassallo vs. State Board of Retirement
Arbitration awarded: December 16, 2022
The Petitioner submitted a request for Group 2 Classification for his service as a cook at Franklin County House of Correction, which was denied by the State Board of Retirement. With the help of the National Correctional Employees Union, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals to challenge the denial. Certain municipal employees are classified for retirement purposes in Groups 1 through 4. Group 2 includes, “employees of the Commonwealth of any county, regardless of any official classification . . . whose regular and major duties require them to have the care, custody, instruction, or other supervision of prisoners. . .”The State Board of Retirement disputed that Petitioner engaged in the “care, custody, instruction, or other supervision of prisoners” for purposes of Group 2 Classification.
Attorney Choi successfully argued that the Petitioner was entitled to Group 2 Classification because there was no question that Petitioner’s job duties and responsibilities encompassed care, custody, instruction, and other supervision of inmates. Witness testimony and the parties’ exhibits, including the job description, supported the position that Petitioner spends most of his day with direct inmate contact. Petitioner was responsible for the operation of food services, and in order to achieve this goal, his supervision, instruction, assignment, and counsel of inmates was necessary to the preparation and service of food for large numbers of persons at the House of Corrections.
The Division of Administrative Law Appeals ordered the State Board of Retirement to reclassify the Petitioner as Group 2 after finding that the Petitioner’s regular and major duties required him to have the care, custody, instruction, or other supervision of prisoners more than 50% of the time.