Appellate Court Dismisses Medford's Attack on Arbitration as Untimely

Employers love to claim that a grievance is untimely, even if the challenge is just one day beyond what the employer views as the deadline. A dismissal for untimeliness means that the decisionmaker never has to consider the merits of a party's appeal. Attorneys Leah Barrault and Ian Russell persuaded the Appeals Court that timeliness also applies to Employer attacks on union victories.

In the attached decision, the Appeals Court agreed that the City of Medford failed to take proper steps to prevent or reverse an arbitration award won by Medford Fire Fighters, Local 1032 IAFF. Local 1032 grieved the City's change in how certain vacancies were filled as a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Prior to the arbitration hearing, the City filed suit to have the arbitration placed on hold and the subject matter declared as beyond the arbitrator's authority. The City never formally asked the court to stay the arbitration. Instead, the City participated in the arbitration hearing and promised to litigate the dispute later.

The arbitrator agreed with Attorney Barrault that the City's change of a longstanding practice violated the contract. The City went back to Court but failed to amend its lawsuit to include a request that the Court vacate or modify the award. Instead, the City continued with its demand that the hearing, which had already concluded, be "stayed." The Appeals Court, after hearing argument by Attorney Russell, dismissed the appeal in the attached unpublished decision.

This decision is a forceful reminder that a public employer seeking to challenge the basis for arbitration must, prior to the hearing, formally convince a court to intervene or must, after a decision is issued and within statutory deadlines, ask a court to reverse the decision. The City's failure to do either in a timely fashion led the Court to dismiss the case.