Recent Developments

A neutral arbitrator affirmed that a supervisor's disclosure of an employee's sensitive or confidential information to other employees is a legitimate basis for discipline. But the same arbitrator agreed with Attorney Jillian Ryan that the City of Boston failed to establish that this supervisor engaged in this misconduct.

It is against the National Labor Relations Act to fire or refuse to hire someone because of their because of activities in support of (or even against) a union. Attorney Jillian Ryan worked alongside a National Labor Relation Board's General Counsel representative to persuade an administrative law judge that Connecticut company, M&J Bus, refused to hire two individuals because of they served as union stewards for a predecessor bus company. She also helped persuade the judge that M&J Bus unlawfully refused to recognize UFCW Local 1459 as the representative of employees.

Earlier this summer, an Arbitrator agreed with Attorney David Rome and 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East that American Red Cross improperly withheld across-the-board pay increases to three employees in 2013. This was the second time the employer withheld the annual increase to these employes, but the first time the matter had been grieved. The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make these employees whole from the time period of the grievance (roughly August 2013) to date.

Massachusetts and New Hampshire residents likely are very familiar with the successful protests by Market Basket employees over the past few months. The episode has been an inspiring example of the power of workers, when acting together, to improve working conditions, even without a formal union.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), generally speaking, entitles most employees to discuss or complain about work without repercussion from the employer. This right extends to discussions at workplaces without a union and where no union is even contemplated or desired. It also extends, as the NLRB affirmed last week, to social media.

An employee's off-duty conduct generally is not a basis for work-related punishment - at least in workplaces protected by "just cause" under a union contract. Public employees frequently face a greater likelihood that off-duty misconduct will be used to punish them, even with union protection. The Supreme Judicial Court, in two cases issued last week, limited the penalties suffered by public employees who committed reprehensible criminal acts while off-duty.

On Friday, August 15, 2012, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous decision affirming that SEIU, Local 509 has direct standing, on its own behalf, to challenge privatization decisions by state agencies when those agencies fail to follow the statutory pre-contracting requirements that give Unions representing state workers the opportunity to take steps to save their members’ jobs.

By a vote of 37-1, adjuncts who teach pre-college (or non-college) courses at Northeastern University voted to join 1,000 other adjuncts in the existing SEIU bargaining. Attorneys Patrick Bryant and David Rome represented SEIU and its Adjunct Action effort in this campaign.

It is illegal for employers to misclassify employees as "independent contractors," especially in an effort to avoid minimum wage and overtime obligations. Attorney Betsey Ehrenberg, a founding partner of the union/employee-side law firm Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, PC, successfully sued night club owner Kevin Moury for this type of misclassification. Instead of paying his workers a minimum wage (let alone a livable one), Moury forced employees to pay him to work. He also fined workers who failed to pay the mandatory shift fee.

The Vermont Labor Relations Board has dismissed a charge alleging that the Vermont State Employees Association committed an unfair labor practice by expelling from union office a member who was involved in a rival organizing campaign. In a case of first impression, the VLRB adopted the position held by the National Labor Relations Board that the Labor Board may not interfere in a union's internal affairs unless the union's actions "affect a member's employment status and relationship as an employee with his employer" or "impair any policy embedded in" State labor law.