Chief Justice for Administration & Management of the Trial Court v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board
946 N.E.2d 704
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- CJAM argued it was not required to bargain over the impact of hiring retired per diem court officers for Suffolk Superior Court.
- Board held CJAM’s unilateral action to hire retirees and transfer related duties violated G. L. c. 150E, §10(a)(1)+(5) and required remedial bargaining.
- CJAM historically could assign and transfer court officers under G. L. c. 211B, §9A, and SJC orders, including emergencies for public safety.
- 2000–2003 CBA acknowledged CJAM’s right to assign, contract out, and manage personnel in emergencies, reinforcing managerial prerogatives.
- In 2001–2002 a retirement incentive created a staffing shortfall in Suffolk; CJAM used retirees to address shortages.
- SCSCOA initially opposed retirees’ use while proposing swap arrangements with general unit members; interposition of retirees began in March 2003 as part of staffing response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CJAM must bargain over impact of retiree hires | SCSCOA argued impact bargaining required | CJAM contends public safety exclusivity and urgent need override | No; impact bargaining not required; public safety prerogative prevails |
| Whether court’s security decisions are nonbargainable | Public policy favors bargaining, preserving unit interests | Security is nonbargainable under CJAM’s exclusive authority | Security decisions are nonbargainable; board erred in ordering impact bargaining |
| Whether retirees displaced bargaining unit work or caused erosion | Retirees’ work displaced SCSCOA work | Retirees were supplemental due to shortage; no erosion shown | Record shows retirees supplemental, not substitutional; no erosion established |
| Whether the board’s remedy was supported by substantial evidence | Remedy for loss of wages/benefits justified | No measurable loss to bargaining unit occurred; remedy improper | Remedy reversed; evidence insufficient to show loss or impact required bargaining |
| Whether CJAM’s authority to assign personnel outweighed contract terms | Contract terms could limit CJAM’s assignments | Statutory and SJC authority over public safety overrides contract terms | CJAM’s statutory and SJC authority over public safety controls; contract terms not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittsfield Sch. Comm. v. United Educators of Pittsfield, 438 Mass. 753 (Mass. 2003) (public employees’ bargaining rights with public policy constraints)
- Chief Justice for Admin. & Mgmt. of the Trial Ct. v. Office & Professional Employees Int’l Union, Local 6, 441 Mass. 620 (Mass. 2004) (dominant managerial prerogative over assignment and transfer; public safety emphasis)
- Somerville v. Somerville Mun. Employees Assn., 451 Mass. 493 (Mass. 2008) (statutory conferment of appointment authority excluded from bargaining)
- School Comm. of Boston v. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, 378 Mass. 65 (Mass. 1979) (public policy limits on collective bargaining in public safety matters)
- Danvers Sch. Comm. v. Tyman, 372 Mass. 106 (Mass. 1977) (ancillary bargaining for assignments; supervisory scope)