106 N.E.3d 1105
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Officer Matthew Gutwill, a Framingham police officer and union member, worked on a DEA task force (detective assignment) under a temporary assignment subject to the police chief’s discretion.
- After Gutwill complained about misconduct by another detective and allegedly made inflammatory statements to the police chief, the department investigated; Gutwill was placed on leave and suspended for untruthfulness.
- Upon return from suspension, the police chief reassigned Gutwill from the detective bureau to the patrol division; the union grieved, asserting the transfer was disciplinary without just cause under the CBA and demanded arbitration.
- The town (Framingham) sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration, arguing assignments are a nondelegable managerial prerogative under G. L. c. 41, § 97A and thus not arbitrable; the Superior Court denied relief.
- The Appeals Court reviewed whether the transfer is arbitrable (likelihood of success) and whether enjoining arbitration would serve the public interest, given that as a government plaintiff Framingham need not show irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Framingham) | Defendant's Argument (Union/Gutwill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police chief’s assignment/transfer is arbitrable | Assignments are an exclusive, nondelegable managerial right under G. L. c. 41, § 97A; not subject to CBA arbitration | The CBA covers discipline/conditions of employment, so the reassignment arising from alleged misconduct is arbitrable | Transfer/assignment is nondelegable and not arbitrable; arbitration enjoined |
| Whether town must show irreparable harm for preliminary injunction | No; when enforcing statutory public-interest managerial prerogatives, irreparable harm is not required | Injunction should require showing of irreparable harm like a private party case | Town need not show irreparable harm; must show likelihood of success and public interest |
| Whether allegations of pretext/discipline make assignment arbitrable | Even if disciplinary motives are alleged, the assignment decision itself remains within chief’s exclusive authority | Characterizes the transfer as de facto discipline subject to just-cause arbitration | Alleged motive or pretext does not render an otherwise nondelegable assignment arbitrable |
| Scope of permissible arbitration remedies (reinstatement vs. assignment) | Arbitration cannot order an agency to alter assignments or deployments reserved to management | Arbitration can review suspensions/terminations and order reinstatement if warranted | Arbitrators may address discipline/termination remedies but may not order specific assignments or deployments |
Key Cases Cited
- Billerica v. International Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1495, 415 Mass. 692 (1993) (identifies certain nondelegable management rights not subject to bargaining or arbitration)
- Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Local 165 v. Northborough, 416 Mass. 252 (1993) (town may not contract away nondelegable managerial rights)
- Department of State Police v. Massachusetts Org. of State Engrs. & Scientists, 456 Mass. 450 (2010) (parties cannot agree to arbitrate matters that lawfully cannot be subject to arbitration)
- Boston v. Boston Police Superior Officers Fedn., 466 Mass. 210 (2013) (transfers/assignments within law enforcement are nondelegable managerial functions tied to public safety)
- Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Assn., 477 Mass. 434 (2017) (discipline/termination can be arbitrable, but did not suggest arbitrators may order specific assignments)
- Saugus v. Saugus Police Superior Officers Union, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 916 (2005) (involuntary assignments required for public safety are within chief’s exclusive prerogative and not arbitrable)