Recent Developments

On July 23, 2024, a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling summarily dismissing the frivolous election objections and exceptions filed by cannabis retailer Curaleaf and thus certified UFCW, Local 1445 as the exclusive representative of the employees at Curaleaf's Oxford, Mass., dispensary. The case was the first formal decision (and victory) for Pyle Rome attorney Catherine Terrell in the short time since she joined the firm.

A common management response to petitions for a union election is to challenge the right of some or all of the workers to vote for the union. As the National Labor Relations Act does not entitle certain supervisors to join or form unions, management frequently alleges that one or more workers meet the statutory definition of supervisor.

A recent decision by Region One of the National Labor Relations Board rejected this gambit used by a Massachusetts human services organization that operates group homes.

On behalf of Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA), Attorney Patrick Bryant persuaded the Vermont Supreme Court to issue the first decision affirming the reinstatement of a state employee in nearly two decades. The Vermont Supreme Court's decision further strengthened the primary role of the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) in interpreting collective bargaining agreements governing state employees.

On May 14, 2014, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction against cannabis company I.N.S.A. requiring the company to bargain with UFCW, Local 1445, even though Local 1445 lost the union election, because the election had been tainted by the company's unfair labor practices. The underlying decision of the administrative law judge was the first case to apply the NLRB's Cemex standard, and the federal court decision was the first to enforce a so-called Cemex bargaining order.

On April 24, 2024, a neutral arbitrator sustained a grievance filed by UFCW, Local 1445 alleging that Delaware North improperly overstaffed novelty stands at the TD Garden, potentially depriving concessionaires of earnings opportunities. Pyle Rome attorney Al Gordon O'Connell represented the UFCW in the case.

On April 25, 2024, Pyle Rome attorney Al Gordon O'Connell gave testimony to the Vermont House of Representatives Committee on General and Housing relating to S.102. His testimony supported the legislative action to extend collective bargaining rights to Assistant Attorneys General in Vermont. You can watch his testimony here (at time stamp 27:52):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3svuk81FHiw 

The lawyers and staff of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg are excited to welcome Catherine Terrell as an Attorney with the firm. Catherine comes to us most recently from Region 1 of the National Labor Relations Board. She spent the last thirteen years at the NLRB working to protect the rights of employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and she also served as President of her own Local Union, representing her colleagues in disputes with management. A resident of Vermont, Catherine also helps to expand and solidify the firm’s standing as the largest Union-side law firm in Vermont.

On April 17, 2024, a neutral arbitrator awarded victory to UNITE HERE Local 26 in a case where the Boston Park Plaza bypassed a number of more senior employees to promote their hand-picked candidate. Pyle Rome attorney Jim Hykel won the case for the Union.

In the first week of April 2024, the United Steelworkers and SENA, Local 9158 secured two victories from the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) and Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) paving the way for representation of employees of the City of Boston.

Whatever your thoughts may be about the COVID vaccine requirements that sprang up during the height of the pandemic, one principle that remains clear is that employers were required to accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs prevented them from getting the vaccine unless such accommodation would cause an undue burden on the employer. On April 2, 2024, a neutral arbitrator determined that MassDOT failed to give proper consideration to potential accommodations for one such employee.