491 Mass. 556
Mass.2023Background
- In August 2021 Boston adopted a COVID-19 policy requiring employees either to verify vaccination or submit weekly negative tests; MOAs memorialized that policy with some unions.
- With the Omicron surge and medical advice that testing was insufficient, Mayor Wu unilaterally amended the policy on December 20, 2021 to require vaccination as a condition of employment, with near-term compliance deadlines and progressive discipline up to termination.
- The unions (Boston Firefighters Local 718, Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society, Boston Police Superior Officers Federation) filed prohibited-practice charges, a Superior Court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and a request for a preliminary injunction; the motion judge denied the injunction.
- A single justice of the Appeals Court reversed and enjoined enforcement of the amended mandate for represented employees; the city appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which reviewed the single justice’s order for abuse of discretion.
- The SJC found the unilateral policy change was a nondelegable core managerial decision (given public-safety and public-health exigencies), held plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on decision-bargaining/repudiation claims, found some likelihood on impact-bargaining limited to whether the implementation deadline was reasonable, but concluded plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm and that the public interest favored the city; the SJC vacated the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decision to remove testing and mandate vaccination was a mandatory subject of decision-bargaining | City should have bargained before eliminating testing alternative; unilateral change violated G. L. c. 150E | Decision to mandate vaccination amid Omicron is a core managerial, nondelegable public‑safety/health policy not subject to decision bargaining | Held for defendant: decision bargaining inapplicable — core managerial prerogative reserved to employer |
| Whether the MOAs were repudiated by the unilateral amendment | MOA language (e.g., promise to "fulfill any impact bargaining obligations") required bargaining on substantive change; defendants repudiated MOAs | MOAs contain no clear agreement to mandatory decision‑bargain on future public‑health mandates; public interest limits enforceability | Held for defendant: plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on repudiation claim |
| Whether defendants violated impact‑bargaining obligations and if exigency excuse applies | Plaintiffs say defendants failed to meaningfully bargain over impacts and imposed unreasonable deadlines | Defendants claim exigent circumstances (Omicron) justified a reasonable, short deadline and permitted post‑implementation impact bargaining | Mixed: SJC finds some likelihood plaintiffs can prevail on narrow impact‑bargaining point (reasonableness of initial ~3‑week deadline) — factual issue remanded to CERB/investigator |
| Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm and public‑interest balance justifies injunction | Unvaccinated members face suspension/termination and bodily‑integrity/self‑determination harms — injunction required | Harm is economic/employment and the public interest in health and safety outweighs employees' economic harms | Held for defendant: no irreparable harm (economic remedies available) and public interest favors city; injunction was abused and vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Worcester v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 438 Mass. 177 (2002) (framework for distinguishing core managerial prerogatives from mandatory subjects of bargaining)
- Local 346, Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 391 Mass. 429 (1984) (public‑safety decisions may exceed bargaining obligations)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (loss of employment ordinarily does not constitute irreparable harm)
- Hull Mun. Lighting Plant v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 399 Mass. 640 (1987) (economic loss alone generally insufficient for irreparable harm)
- Boston v. Boston Police Superior Officers Fed'n, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (1990) (core managerial control over matters affecting public safety)
- Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609 (1980) (standards for reviewing injunctions and scope of appellate review)
- LeClair v. Norwell, 430 Mass. 328 (1999) (public‑interest balancing can defeat preliminary injunction even with meritorious statutory claims)
- Pittsfield v. Local 447 Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers, 480 Mass. 634 (2018) (wrongful termination remedies can include reinstatement and make‑whole relief)