Nolan & Perroni in recent News Media

Peter Perroni was recently captured in living color on the front page of the Concord Monitor, which paper ran a large story covering Peter's defense of NEPBA's local Union President from Franklin NH. Take a look here.

In other news, Gary Nolan was sought out this week by Massachusetts' biggest legal newpaper, Mass. Lawyers Weekly, for his opinion of a significant ruling by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals. Read Gary's comments here.

For those of you who missed Peter's Interview on WBZ TV, giving his opinion on the recent rise in labor strikes, you can view it here.

VIDEOS: Mass. SJC hears oral arguments on two cases expected to have big impact on Brady Disclosures

In 2023, two significant cases were argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that will significantly impact prosecutors' obligations to disclose so-called Brady evidence, specifically obligations relating to alleged police misconduct. Both cases come out of Hampden County and involve District Attorneys' alleged failures to produce/inquire about police misconduct evidence. The McFarlane appeals court case - decided in February 2023 - has created as many questions as answers. Among the issues are the extent of a DA's duty to inquire of the police, whether civil lawsuit allegations must be disclosed, the impact of POST's public database on this issue, and the responsiblity of officers to respond to inquiries.

As we know, following the earlier stages of these recent cases, many DA's offices issued new policies and questionairres impacting police witnesses. Now that the appeals have been argued to the SJC (in September), we can expect significant guidance from the Court in the near future.

If you would like to watch the oral arguments before the Court, click the links below. They're each around an hour.

Click here to watch SJC Argument - McFarlane Case

Click here to watch SJC Argument - Hampden County DA Case

HOW TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO P.O.S.T. DISCIPLINE WEBSITE

In conjuntion with the NEPBA, we have put out the attached Memorandum of Instuctions with regard to the recent discipline publication by POST. We have seen many reporting errors already - inclusion of discipline that was vacated, overturned, and not reportable, etc. There are specific rules and procedures to follow to request removal, and there are other measures that can be taken to find out what information was supplied to POST by your local department / agency. In some cases, it seems clear that incomplete, incorrect, or unreportable information was provided.

Attached is a comprehensive memorandum with specific information about the objection process, including steps to be taken along the way by individuals and local unions, and important links and contact information. It's long, but if you are impacted, be sure to take the time to go through it and gather / request the relevant documents that can help improve the situation for you or others. Also attached is the applicable CMR with certain sections hightlighted, as discussed in the memo.

Nolan | Perroni Memorandum of Instructions

CMR Applicable to POST Database Publication

Appeals Court Strikes down "Cadet Rate of Pay": Police Academy Students must be Paid the same as Regular Police Officer

This summer, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the Town of Brewster's "cadet rate" for police academy students was illegal, and violated the state's Wage Act. This is important for many communities who have attempted to implement a lower rate of pay for student or cadet officers, as such rules could now impose significant liablity (i.e. triple damages and attorneys fees) for such wage structures.

The appeals court case is: Daniel LANCTOT & others 1 v. TOWN OF BREWSTER.. No. 22-P-259, Decided: June 22, 2023. Among the court's findings, it held that:

"Brewster's bylaw creating a “cadet” position (with a discretionary rate of pay) conflicts with the plain language of the statute creating a “student officer” position (with a police officer rate of pay). G. L. c. 41, § 96B. “[A] municipality may not enact a bylaw, policy, or regulation that is inconsistent with State law.” Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. 690, 699, 871 N.E.2d 469 (2007). See G. L. c. 147, § 21A (establishing process for appointing “police cadets”). Thus, the plain language of G. L. c. 41, § 96B, prohibits precisely the sort of special classification that Brewster has tried to create."

Nolan | Perroni wins Arbitration for NEPBA Norfolk Supervisors - Eliminates Individual Bargain

N|P partner Gary Nolan recently won an important arbitration victory on behalf of NEPBA Local 570, which represents the Norfolk County Correctional Supervisor’s Union.

In order to ensure that certain individuals do not receive special compensation not otherwise available to all superior officers, the union and the Sheriff agreed to phase out so-called out-of-rank pay for certain appointed assignments. When the union discovered that a particular officer continued to receive special, non-contractual compensation, it challenged the practice through the grievance process. After a series of denials by the employer, N|P and NEPBA took the matter to arbitration.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Sheriff's Office violated multiple CBA provisions as it was paying the selected employee at an increased rate of pay which was never posted and never made known to other union members. In rejecting all of the Sheriff’s legal arguments, the arbitrator found that the decision to pay the appointed lobby officer the special rate of pay violated the parties agreement that all such officers by paid “their rank pay and not a higher rate of pay.”

The NEPBA and its Local brought this important case to ensure that individual bargains that violate the union’s contract are eliminated, as such side-deals negatively impact the union’s ability to protect and improve wages and benefits for the group as a whole.

Click here to read the Full Decision

Major legal newspaper runs front-page story on Nolan | Perroni case

Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly, the leading legal newspaper in the Commonwealth, recently did an in-depth, front page article on one of our cases - NEPBA Local 20 v. Town of Chelmsford, where the Town's agents were found to have participated in illegal ex-parte communications with a JLMC arbitration panelist, and where it was determined that the Town's Manager mislead his own Town Meeting and Finance Committee in violation of the law. The case was a huge win for NEPBA and for public safety unions across Massachusetts.

Click here to read the coverage

Nolan Perroni wins major Labor Board cases for NEPBA & Chelmsford Police Sergeants

The Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations this week issued a 50-page stinging rebuke of the Town of Chelmsford’s municipal management, finding that its Town Manager and Counsel unlawfully communicated with an arbitration panel member in an attempt to gain confidential information in order to influence an arbitration award, and also by misleading the Town’s Finance Committee and Town Meeting, among many other violations of law. NP partners Gary Nolan and Peter Perroni represented the NEPBA and the Chelmsford Police Sergeant’s Union (NEPBA Local 20) in this long-running legal battle.

This very important decision thoughtfully addresses the good faith bargaining requirements of parties and arbitration panelists during a contract arbitration proceeding before the JLMC, both during the hearings and all the way through the contract funding process.

This Department of Labor Relations decision comes more than a year after it concluded eight (8) days of testimony in this case, in addition to adjudicating related litigation and appeals involving subpoena issues. This decision - reached in favor of the Chelmsford Police Sergeant’s Union - sustained three (3) different Prohibited Practice Complaints issued against the Town of Chelmsford.

Allegations

The union alleged that during a previous contract arbitration (JLMC) proceeding, the Chelmsford Town Manager, together with Town Counsel, had illegally communicated in secret with an arbitration panelist, Andrew Flanagan (Andover Town Manager), in an attempt to ensure that the 2016-2019 contract arbitration award (which was favorable to the union) was defeated at Town Meeting. The union alleged that Flanagan unlawfully leaked the award to the town before its release, and then allowed the Town to secretly influence the arbitration panel’s confidential deliberations, and then – when that effort failed – to draft a negative “dissenting opinion” to attach to the arbitration award, which Flanagan had agreed to pass-off as his own. That negative opinion was the Town’s basis to reject the favorable contract during Town Meeting. The Town Manager, however, never disclosed that he and Town Counsel were actually responsible for the negative dissenting opinion.

DLR Findings

Based on multiple unlawful and inappropriate communications between the Town’s Counsel, Town Manager and the JLMC Panel Member Flanagan, the DLR determined that the Town of Chelmsford violated the law in many ways. Some examples are below.

Unlawful Conduct During JLMC Contract Arbitration Proceeding

The DLR found:

• The sworn testimony of Andrew Flanagan (JLMC Panel Member) was not credited.

• The Town acted in bad faith when Town Counsel engaged in ex-parte communications with Flanagan with the intent to gain information about the arbitration panel’s confidential deliberations and influence the award.

• Paul Cohen, Chelmsford’s Town Manager, participated in the unlawful conduct; Cohen knew that Town Counsel was communicating with Flanagan; Cohen was informed of the contents of the communications; and Cohen reviewed the dissent, and understood it would be incorporated into the arbitration award.

• The Town is responsible for the unlawful conduct of Cohen.

• Through its unlawful conduct, the Town gained an unfair advantage by receiving information about the panel’s confidential deliberations before the award was issued.

• The Town acted in bad faith when Town Counsel engaged in ex-parte communications with Flanagan with the intent to influence the panel and modify the arbitration award.

• The Town knowingly engaged in the unlawful conduct in order to influence the arbitration award.

• The Town acted in bad faith when Town Counsel drafted a Dissenting Opinion for Flanagan, with the intent and knowledge that the dissent would be incorporated into the arbitration award.

• As a result of the Town’s unlawful conduct, both the Finance Committee and the Town Meeting voted not to appropriate funding for the arbitration award.

• The Town violated the legal requirement to participate in good faith contract arbitration procedures.

Unlawful conduct during funding process: the Town Manager misled the Town Meeting prior to its funding vote

The DLR found that:

• The Finance Committee was heavily influenced by the Dissenting Opinion, which is indicative of the Town’s bad faith during the arbitration panel’s deliberation period.

• The Town Manager misled the Finance Committee and Town Meeting by leading them to believe that the Award was independently reached by the panel of arbitrators.

• The Town Manager was aware that Town Counsel had communicated with JLMC Panel Member Flanagan in an attempt to influence the award throughout the deliberation period and knew that Town Counsel had drafted the dissenting opinion which was incorporated into the award.

• By presenting the Award to Town Meeting and the Finance Committee and not disclosing to either that Town Counsel had drafted the opinion, the Town misled the Town Meeting and Finance Committee into believing that the Award was reached by an independent arbitration panel after a full and fair hearing and an unadulterated deliberation process.

• By his unlawful conduct at Town Meeting, the Town Manager failed to bargain in good faith in violation of the law (i.e., failed to bargain with honesty, integrity or an open or fair mind).

Conclusion and Remedy

The Department of Labor Relations concluded:

• The Town of Chelmsford violated the law when, through counsel, it (1) engaged in ex-parte communications with JLMC Panelist Flanagan with the intent to gain information about the arbitration panel’s confidential deliberations, influence the opinion of the panel and modify the award, and (2) by drafting the dissenting opinion for Flanagan with the intent and understanding that it would be incorporated into the award.

• The Town violated the law by failing to participate in the JLMC process in good faith.

• The Town violated the law when it misled the Town Meeting and Finance Committee into believing that the award was issued by an independent arbitration panel after a full and fair hearing and unadulterated deliberation process.

• The Town withheld directly relevant and necessary information from the union in violation of the law.

• The Town’s unlawful conduct substantially impaired the collective bargaining and JLMC arbitration process.

• As an unfortunate consequence of the Town’s conduct, the arbitration panel issued an award, portions of which were heavily influenced by the Town’s unlawful ex-parte communications.

• The Town’s unlawful conduct resulted in the Finance Committee’s vote not to recommend funding of the award.

Ordered Remedy

The DLR has ordered the Town to take the following actions:

• Resubmit the request to fund the arbitration award to the Finance Committee and Town Meeting within 30 days of September 6, 2022 (at a regular or special Town Meeting).

• No less than 14-days before the Town Meeting vote, as it is essential that Finance Committee Members and Town Meeting Representatives be informed of the Town’s conduct, a copy of the DLR order, decision and notice must be delivered to all Finance Committee Members and Town Meeting Representatives.

In addition, the Town was issued a lengthy Cease and Desist Order, and also a Notice of its Wrongful Conduct which must be posted alerting employees of the findings.

The full decision can be read by clicking the link below.

Click Here

NP Wins Sick Time Buy-Back Arbitration for NEPBA's Rochester, NH Local

NP Attorney Peter Perroni recently won an important arbitration decision on behalf of NEPBA Local 23 (Rochester, NH Police Patrol Officers’ Union). NEPBA’s member, a police officer who was vested in the NH retirement system, but not yet eligible due to age, was denied contractual sick-time buyout based on the fact that he had to defer his pension to a later time. The NEPBA appealed to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled that the NEPBA officer was nonetheless still entitled to receive contractual sick leave buyout. According to the arbitrator, by ordering the employer to pay the sick time buyout at the same time the employee begins to collect pension payments, both the intent and purposes of the CBA’s sick-time buyout clause are met, despite any particular contractual language included in the agreement.

Click here to read the Arbitrator's Award.

Court says POST Questions 6 & 7 are Unconstitutional - NEPBA granted partial injunction

In response to a consolidated lawsuit filed by Nolan | Perroni on behalf of the NEPBA (and the Worcester Police Patrol Officers and President Dan Gilbert, NEPBA's representative local union), and other unions, the Suffolk Superior Court today enjoined POST from requiring officers to answer two of the most objectionable questions on the recertification questionnaire.

The Court held that Question 6, regarding social media posts that could be perceived as biased, was, as NEPBA argued, unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment's protections of Free Speech. In striking down Question 6, the Court stated "grounding these questions in wholly subjective, indiscernible standards does not comport with Constitutional requirements."

Also, the Court rejected Question 7, which requires disclosure of membership in certain organizations, as an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy of association and belief protected by the First Amendment. As argued by the NEPBA, the Court noted that "Question Number 7 makes no effort to limit disclosure to the type of membership that might actually indicate some bias ... but, rather, seeks information that by and large is irrelevant..."

The Court Ordered that POST may not ask officers Questions 6 and 7 as part of the recertification process and that officers that have not yet responded to the Questionnaire need not respond to Questions 6 and 7. For Officers that have already responded to the Questionnaire, the court ordered that their answers to Questions 6 and 7 may not be used, directly or indirectly, as a basis for denial of recertification.

The court considered several other arguments advanced by the unions but only ordered that Questions 6 & 7 were unconstitutional and appropriate for the extraordinary relief in the form of an injunction.

This case, and the ongoing effort to protect the constitutional rights of law enforcement officers, is extremely important to the entire NEPBA Executive Committee. We are still analyzing this decision together with the NEPBA. In the meantime, a copy is attached below.

Click here for the full decision

Court hears NEPBA's Motion for Injunction in POST Recertification Questionnaire Litigation

Last Friday, Attorneys Peter Perroni and Gary Nolan appeared before a Suffolk Superior Court judge in Boston where they asked that the court enjoin the POST Commission's use of the current recertification questionnaire. The NEPBA case, originally filed in Worcester, was consolidated with another lawsuit filed in Boston and the parties argued jointly in favor of the injunction. The hearing was well attended and the Court was clearly prepared to examine the important constitutional issues raised by the unions. The oral arguments lasted more than 2-hours. The Court took the matter under advisement and told the parties that this case is a top priority. All indications are that the court will issue a decision sometime in the next several days. We will continue to keep parties posted when further information becomes available.

UPDATE: NP and NEPBA file lawsuit vs. POST Commission - seek injunction relating to Questionnaire process

On behalf of the Worcester Police Patrol Officers Union, the NEPBA and its Massachusetts membership, Attorneys Peter Perroni and Gary Nolan filed a lawsuit against the POST Commission, seeking to enjoin the controversial POST questionnaire process. Our case was filed in the Worcester Superior Court, and a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction was scheduled for 10am today (5/27). At a little after 9:00am, however, the court cancelled the hearing. The explanation is below.

Around 4:30pm yesterday, the Massachusetts Attorney General's office (representing POST) filed an emergency Motion to Stay our case in Worcester, and simultaneously filed a Motion in Suffolk County (where another case v. POST is pending) requesting that both cases be joined and moved to Suffolk. Today we received notice that the court temporarily postponed this morning's hearing and issued the following short briefing schedule:

  • 6/03/22 - NEPBA to file its opposition to POST's motion to stay;
  • 6/10/22 - POST to file its opposition to NEPBA's motion for injunction;
  • 6/17/22 - New hearing date on plaintiff's motion for injunction.

We will continue to provide updates on this important litigation spearheaded by NEPBA, Inc., NEPBA Local 911 and its president. To read our submissions and legal arguments, click below.

1. NEPBA's Motion for Injunction (legal arguments)

2. NEPBA's Complaint (lawsuit v POST).

WATCH VIDEO: Peter Perroni argues before the NH Supreme Court for NEPBA Fish & Game

After having secured a favorable contract arbitration, and then a favorable ULP Decision (finding bad faith on the part of the State of NH), the 3-year labor battle continued as the State appealed to its highest court for relief. Earlier this month, Attorney Perroni brought his usual zeal and strong advocacy to the Supreme Court in support of NEPBA's Fish and Game members.

Click Here to watch.

Find out how much your City or Town received in Covid Relief Funds - Updated List

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts publishes a detailed, updated list of all Covid relief funds (not just ARPA) received by communities. If you are bargaining or discussing the application of these funds, it is easy to determine how much was allocated and claimed by your community.

The link below takes you to the Mass.gov site, which has an updated list of every city and town, and all the funds. There are two that are of particular importance:

  • Coronavirus Relief Fund - Municipal Program (coded on the list as CvRf); and
  • Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery (coded as CLFRF) - this is the ARPA funding, under which premium pay is an authorized use (American Recovery Plan Act).

So, in order to determine your communities' funding, just click the link, then scroll down to your city or town. Then, as you move to the right, looking under the columns with the above codes as headings, you can easily identify how much was allocated and how much has been claimed for each source of funds.

For example, as of today, the Town of Acton (the list is alphabetical), has received the following:

  • $2,092,925 (Code CvRf-MP); and also received
  • $7,072,733 (amt. allocated) (Code CLFRF - this is the ARPA funding)
  • $3,536,367 (amt. claimed) (Code CLRF)

To view your communities' funding, just click here.

Body Camera Bargaining Update - Massachusetts Police Locals

It has been widely reported that the Commonwealth's Office of Public Safety has been actively awarding grants for BWC programs to communities. The grant program has very specific requirements in its application process, including several that concern collective bargaining and your union’s role as a necessary part of the process.

Attached below is a copy of the Massachusetts BWC Grant Application instructions - I have highlighted several terms of interest. Please take some time to read and familiarize yourself and your local with the process. This will definitely help your group understand that the union has a required role in the grant process. You will also learn the extensive amount of information that must be provided by cities and towns, much of which will be of great interest to local unions. Finally, it would be good to know what representations are being made about the status of union negotiations and proposed changes to employment practices, etc.

The second attachment is just a standard public records request for the grant information. This is one that was sent directly to the State, although it can also be directed to the employer. Groups dealing with the BWC issue should request the grant information so they can analyze and then be in a position to bargain effectively.

If your community is not one of the many that applied for the grants, then the information required by the state is a good starting point for your union to form its own informaiton request - in other words, to the extent the PD is starting a BWC program, you could ask for the same types of information as part of a GL c. 150E request to your PD.

Click Here - BWC Grant Info

Click Here - Public Records Request

Nolan Perroni, PC - Wins Landmark Civil Service Promotion Case for Methuen Firefighter - Commission slams every level of city government

Nolan Perroni, PC was very proud to represent Methuen firefighter Tracy Blanchette in her courageous fight against systemic discrimination in Methuen's fire service, which fight resulted in this landmark victory. Every level of government actively worked against the appellant in order to preserve a culture of favoritism and gender bias. The Civil Service Commission here has, in a 58-page stinging decision, called the City on the carpet, not just for their discriminatory employment practices, but for concealing conflicts of interest, for outright ignoring complaints of gender bias and for the repeatedly dishonest sworn-testimony by top ranking city officials.

In light of the intolerable conduct proven in this significant case, the Commission is prepared to issue the very rare remedy or ordering that the City promote Ms. Blanchette from private to Captain, with all back pay and benefits.

In concluding that gender bias fatally undermined the justification for bypass offered by the City, the Commission found that Blanchette has had a remarkable 26+ year career, despite the obvious challenges associated with being the City's first female firefighter and only ever Methuen firefighter to give birth and manage a family working 24-hour shifts.

Among other things, the Commission found:

  • Given how dubious I am of much of Chief Sheehy’s testimony concerning the process, the City’s evidence is not credible and cannot be relied upon to sustain its burden of proof in this bypass appeal.
  • The predisposition in Tulley's favor was compounded by Chief Sheehy's predisposition against Blanchette due to a proven personal and institutional bias against her in which her gender was a contributing factor.
  • Sheehy thinks the number of women firefighters - three - is sufficient...he sees no need to increase the number, to recruit women into the fire service, or to take any proactive steps to encourage more female applicants in Methuen. He has never done so, nor has he ever thought about doing so. As is often the case with unconscious biases, some people simply refuse to acknowledge them, no matter how obvious they may appear to others.
  • multiple witnesses testified about the mutual back-scratching employment culture available to the male but not the female firefighters of the MFD.
  • Blanchette was treated unfairly, in violation of the basic merit principles set forth in GL c. 31, Sec. 1, and that instead gender bias fatally undermined the justification for bypass offered by the City.
  • Chief Sheehy exercised great influence over the other three interview panelists (two of whom had never worked in the fire service), going so far as to advise them at the start of the interview process of the answers he expected to hear based on the questions posed to the candidates.
  • It is plainly evident to me that all the contractual and other internal processes normally in place to ensure fair treatment were, in fact, unavailable to her, and instead were actively or passively working against her.
  • Despite being a city of over 50,000 people, Methuen has only had four female firefighters in its history...Chief Sheehy seemingly does not believe that women are underrepresented in the Methuen Fire Department. When asked if he would consider requesting an all women's civil service list to address this issue, Sheehy replied, "I don't think we're lacking in numbers, though," and "I didn't even know there was an all female list where I could grab a few."
  • Chief Sheehy testified, "I'm not looking to recruit women."
  • Despite his long tenure as Union President and the existence of discriminatory conditions (women barred from certain shifts, locations and assignments reserved for men only), Sheehy never filed a greivance to remedy this disparate treatment of female firefighters.
  • The record persuasively demponstrated that Blanchette was consistently scored unfairly during the internal interview presided over by Chief Sheehy.
  • I can remember no other example of the use of a post-Assessment Center promotional process that was as flawed as this one...
  • Anne Randazzo, the City's Human Resources Director and Chief Equal Employment Officer, did not testify forthrightly.
  • The City Council ignored Blanchette's gender discrimination complaint. It approved the promotion of Tulley on February 4, 2019, after receiving Appellant’s detailed complaint of gender discrimination. The Council never asked a single question of Chief Sheehy during its meeting and Councilor McCarty voted in favor of Tulley without even mentioning his family relationship with the Intervenor.
  • Randazzo is the City official responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination. She was directly involved in this case. She never even considered looking into the complaint, even though she received a copy from either Chief Sheehy or the Council shortly after it was filed...For that matter, neither did the Mayor, the Chief, the Council, or the Union.

Read the Decision Here

Nolan Perroni, PC win Arbitration case for Worcester County Sheriff’s Office - Sick Time Incentive

Nolan | Perroni, PC and NEPBA recently won an important class action arbitration decision that will benefit members of six (6) Worcester County Sheriff’s Office academy classes - dating back to 2018. As a result, retroactive, bonus personal days will be granted for qualifying officers.

NP’s attorney Gary Nolan represented the Union at arbitration.

In the case, the Union argued that (1) the previous practice of waiting 6 months plus one quarter before a “bonus personal day” could be earned was replaced by the State Sick Time law’s waiting period of 90-days; and that as a result, (2) probationary officers began to earn bonus time immediately upon completing the 90-day period. The Worcester Sheriff’s Office denied the union’s request for all academy classes, and despite the changes in the law and in the CBA, the Sheriff was continuing to make new officers wait a full nine (9) months before they could receive any bonus time.

The arbitrator held that “the contract favors the Union’s interpretation of the contract in large measure,” and agreed with the union that “with the removal of the six-month bar for earning paid sick leave, the parties tacitly agreed or should have understood that the benefit would be awarded to officers who have earned and may take paid sick leave provided he or she does not use a sick day in the qualifying quarter.”

To read the decision, click here.

Nolan | Perroni, PC wins Sick Time Abuse Meetings Arbitration

Nolan | Perroni, PC and NEPBA recently won an arbitration decision upholding significant past agreements governing sick time abuse investigations. NP Attorney Gary Nolan represented the Union.

The arbitrator ruled that several actions by the Sheriff that led to this case should cease and desist. As a result of the arbitrator’s ruling, the Worcester County Sheriff:

• Will no longer be able to hold sick time meetings where there is no actual suspicion of abuse.

• May not hold sick time meetings based solely on an employee’s use of more than 40-hours of sick time.

• Will no longer be able to hold sick time meetings based on an employee’s pattern of sick time use where an employee has used 40-hours or less sick time and has provided proper documentation where applicable.

• Will no longer be able to issue baseless discipline to employees as a “placeholder to memorialize a meeting” where no finding of fault or rule transgression occurred. The arbitrator held that such discipline, as was issued here, is “simply not sustainable as a matter of equity and sound practice.” The employer was ordered to cease and desist issuing discipline in such instances.

• Will no longer be able to ignore the parties 2014 Settlement Agreement which requires the Sheriff to inform employees before any such meeting that they are in fact suspected of sick time abuse, and to also explain the reasons why abuse is suspected.

• The Sheriff had argued that they were not bound by this agreement, and also claimed, both in its grievance denial and through witnesses, that they did give such notice to employees. However, it is clear that the arbitrator did not credit the testimony of the Sheriff’s witnesses, as he found specifically that “The Employer violated the contract by not informing officers that the sick leave meetings conducted by AS Trainor following the sick leave audit conducted by AS Rives were sick time abuse investigations conducted pursuant to Article 17, Section 5.”

To read the decision, click here.

NP Wins Vacation Accrual Arbitration for our NEPBA friends in Northern Maine

NP Attorney Peter Perroni got a great arbitration decision recently for NEPBA's local in Caribou, Maine. The dispute concerned the group's negotiated 42-hour work week, and the Town's practice of only paying 40-hours of vacation time per week accrued. Essentially, the arbitrator agreed with the Union's argument that the Town was short-changing NEPBA's members by the way they were calculating the vacation accruals. The arbitrator also ruled that this practice was a "continuing violation," meaning that each week the town short changed an officer, it committed a new contract violation. According, all members were ordered to be made whole back to the date of the grievance.

The decision is attached here.