2384CV00525 / 2384CV01555
Mass. Super. Ct.Apr 2, 2024Background
- The Boston School Committee sought to vacate two arbitration awards that reinstated paraprofessionals Sherika Alford and Angela O'Neil after their dismissals by Boston Public Schools (BPS).
- Alford was dismissed for allegedly being absent without leave (AWOL) for more than 15 days after not submitting medical documentation by BPS’s deadline, during an extended absence due to family medical emergencies and her own health condition.
- O'Neil was dismissed after not returning from medical leave due to psychological injury resulting from a workplace incident, despite ongoing communication and attempts to provide adequate medical documentation.
- The relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provides that employees shall not be disciplined or discharged without just cause, and authorizes termination for being AWOL more than 15 days.
- Arbitration hearings in both cases concluded that BPS did not have just cause for dismissal, interpreting "AWOL" in the CBA to require a finding that the employee truly abandoned their job, not just failed to strictly comply with leave paperwork.
- The School Committee challenged these arbitration awards on the grounds of contract interpretation and public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “AWOL” in CBA | “AWOL” means any absence of 15+ days without approved leave; strict compliance required. | “AWOL” implies absence without communication or notice; mitigating circumstances and partial compliance must be considered. | Arbitrators acted within authority; “AWOL” requires abandonment, not technical noncompliance. |
| Arbitrator’s powers under the CBA | Arbitrators exceeded authority by effectively modifying the CBA to include consideration of mitigating factors. | Arbitrators simply interpreted existing contract terms, as authorized; did not alter contract. | Arbitrators did not exceed their powers; interpretation of ambiguous terms is within arbitrator’s role. |
| Public policy against reinstatement | Reinstatement undermines educational quality and accountability by making it harder to staff positions. | Reinstatement does not violate public policy; cases involved no misconduct, and multiple laws protect leave/accommodation. | No well-defined public policy was violated by the awards; policy concerns cited are too attenuated. |
| Finality and scope of arbitrator’s award | Awards should be vacated due to legal error in contract construction. | Collective bargaining and arbitration entrust interpretation of such terms to arbitrators; award is final. | Awards upheld; judicial review of arbitration is extremely limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittsfield v. Local 447 Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers, 480 Mass. 634 (arbitrator’s findings of fact are binding and subject to extremely deferential review)
- School Comm. of Lexington v. Zagaeski, 469 Mass. 104 (arbitrator’s interpretation governs unless plainly inconsistent with contract language)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (courts must defer to arbitrator’s interpretation of collective bargaining agreements)
- School Dist. of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223 (past practice is a key interpretive guide for ambiguous contract terms)