Service Employees International Union, Local 509 v. Department of Mental Health
14 N.E.3d 216
Mass.2014Background
- DMH entered Community Based Flexible Supports contracts with private entities, overlapping with union members' duties
- DMH concluded CBFS contracts were not privatization contracts and thus not subject to the Pacheco Law, and did not notify the Auditor
- Approximately 100 union members were laid off in 2009 during the CBFS rollout
- Auditor issued a memorandum Sept. 15, 2010 finding the CBFS contracts were privatization contracts and DMH erred, but the Attorney General took no action
- Union filed a declaratory judgment action Feb. 15, 2012 seeking invalidation of the contracts and relief including reinstatement
- Superior Court dismissed for lack of standing and failing to join necessary parties; court remanded to allow amendment to add all necessary parties
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the union have direct standing to seek declaratory relief under G. L. c. 231A? | Union has a statutory injury within the Pacheco Law's zone of interest | Pacheco Law benefits state employees, not unions; no duty to union | Yes, union has direct standing |
| Are the union's injuries within the Pacheco Law's zone of interest? | DMH's failure to permit union rights harmed the union itself | Law benefits employees; union injuries are indirect | Yes, injuries fall within the statute's concern |
| Did the union's failure to join private CBFS vendors as parties defeat jurisdiction? | Vendors are necessary parties as beneficiaries of the contracts | Joinder not addressed by declaratory action | No on complete resolution; remand to allow amendment to join necessary parties |
| Is declaratory relief an appropriate remedy to adjudicate whether Pacheco Law applies? | Declaratory relief is proper to resolve whether agency must submit to the Auditor | No private right of action; not appropriate | Yes; declaratory relief appropriate to resolve statutory applicability and ensure enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 430 Mass. 783 (2000) (Auditor review of privatization contracts; statutory review framework)
- Enos v. Secretary of Envtl. Affairs, 432 Mass. 132 (2000) (Standing assessments; elastic concept in declaratory actions)
- Mass. Ass’n of Indep. Ins. Agents & Brokers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Ins., 373 Mass. 290 (1977) (zone of interest; injuries within statutory concerns allowed standing)
- Ten Persons of the Commonwealth v. Fellsway Dev. LLC, 460 Mass. 366 (2011) (standing; cognizable injuries in declaratory actions)
- Villages Dev. Co. v. Secretary of the Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs, 410 Mass. 100 (1991) (standing; absence of remedies and joinder implications)