Whether a dismissed teacher employed by a school district for over five years, but who took two separate maternity leaves during that period, has professional teacher status (PTS) is an issue that must be decided by an arbitrator. Plymouth Public Schools v. Educ. Assoc. of Plymouth & Carver, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 643 (2016). This [...]
A teacher does not have the right to challenge his dismissal under the grievance and arbitration procedure, and just cause standard, in a Teachers collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Rather, the appeal is limited to arbitration pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71, section 42, which limits an arbitrator’s ability to overturn a dismissal if the Employer proves [...]
The Appeals Court in Town of Swansea v. Swansea Coalition of Police Local 220, MCOP, affirmed a Superior Court decision vacating an arbitrator’s award which had reduced a police officer’s dismissal to a 90-day suspension. Arbitrator Arnold Marrow’s award violated public policy because the officer’s conduct as found by the arbitrator constituted a felony. The [...]
In an important victory for Massachusetts school districts and statewide efforts towards increased accountability for educators, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has issued a decision which limits the scope of authority granted to an arbitrator under the state’s teacher dismissal statute. School Committee of Lexington v. Zagaeski, 2014 WL 3393541 (July 14, 2014). The [...]
Law makers are debating a bill to impose legal limits on employment-based non-compete agreements in response to a bill originally proposed by Governor Patrick. If passed the bill would provide clearer guidance to employers who might seek to draft such agreements.
Employers frustrated with injured police officers and firefighters who obstruct efforts to get them back to work, or retire, will applaud the recent Superior Court decision upholding the dismissal of a Lawrence Police Department (“LPD”) officer.
The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board rejected the Town of Plymouth’s argument that its cell phone policy did not need to be bargained to agreement or impasse due to its core managerial interest in preventing deadly accidents caused by distracted employees, but left open the possibility that is might be more to allowing an employer to implement a more narrowly drawn plan focused on safety.