City of Somerville v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board
470 Mass. 563
Mass.2015Background
- Somerville accepted G. L. c. 32B, § 9E in 1979; until Aug. 1, 2009 the city paid 99% of indemnity-plan retiree premiums (retirees paid 1%).
- Effective Aug. 1, 2009 the city reduced its retiree contribution rates (indemnity plan to 60%; other plans to 75%) after a board of aldermen vote following public hearing.
- The collective bargaining agreements with unions did not address retiree contribution rates, and the city never bargained with unions about the August 2009 change.
- Multiple unions filed prohibited-practice charges alleging violation of G. L. c. 150E, § 10(a)(5) (refusal to bargain) and § 10(a)(1); the Division found probable cause and the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (board) ruled against the city.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether municipal retiree contribution rates are a mandatory subject of bargaining under G. L. c. 150E or instead fall within municipal authority under G. L. c. 32B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal percentage contributions to retiree health premiums are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining under G. L. c. 150E | City/School Committee refused to bargain; unions say change affects future retiree benefits of current employees and so is bargainable | City/school committee: G. L. c. 32B vests authority in municipality to set retiree contribution rates and thus unions cannot bargain away that statutory power | Not bargainable: municipality may set retiree contribution rates under G. L. c. 32B and thus no § 10(a)(5) violation when city unilaterally changed rates |
| Whether a unilateral change to retiree contribution rates without bargaining is a prohibited practice under G. L. c. 150E, § 10(a)(5) | Unilateral reduction violates § 10(a)(5) because it changes future benefits of current employees | No violation because the change implemented statutory authority reserved to local government | No prohibited practice: change lawful under municipal statutory authority |
| Whether G. L. c. 150E, § 7(d) (conflicts provision) would allow a collective bargaining agreement to override G. L. c. 32B | Unions implied COLA of bargaining power over retiree benefits | City: § 7(d) does not list G. L. c. 32B; statutes not enumerated prevail over contract terms | § 7(d) does not insulate G. L. c. 32B from municipal action; statute prevails over CBA in any event |
| Whether retirees (or future retirees who are current employees) are entitled to make-whole remedies for losses from the change | Unions sought restoration and make-whole relief for members who retired after Aug. 1, 2009 | City contends no bargaining duty existed, so board remedies inappropriate | Court reversed board’s order to restore and make whole because no bargaining violation occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Twomey v. Middleborough, 468 Mass. 260 (recognizing municipal authority under G. L. c. 32B to provide health insurance)
- Cioch v. Treasurer of Ludlow, 449 Mass. 690 (discussing municipal acceptance of G. L. c. 32B options)
- Larson v. School Comm. of Plymouth, 430 Mass. 719 (characterizing health insurance as an unearned benefit subject to bargaining)
- Anderson v. Selectmen of Wrentham, 406 Mass. 508 (municipal contribution to group health insurance is a mandatory bargaining subject for unionized employees)
- National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 448 (legislative reservation of power over health insurance contribution rates cannot be overridden by bargaining)
- Commonwealth v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 404 Mass. 124 (statutes not enumerated in § 7(d) prevail over collective bargaining agreements)
- School Comm. of Newton v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 388 Mass. 557 (limits on bargaining where statutory scheme governs the matter)
- Lynn v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 172 (distinguishing broad managerial discretion from narrow statutory mandates not subject to bargaining)