Show Cause

Town of Winthrop · from StateReference · 2 pages · 432 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS

CHARLES F. HURLEY BUILDING ag espaccdten
19 STANIFORD STREET MPLOYMENT
4st FLOOR, BOSTON, MA 02114 RIELAIONS BOARD
CHARLES D. BAKER PHONE: (617) 626-7132 MABIOnE Ee Wiithes
GoverNoR Fax: (617) 626-7157 a
: dial a Route t onnee BoaRD MEMBER
JIEUTENANT GOVERNOR www.mass.gov/dir ; JOAN ACKERSTEIN
PHILIP T. ROBERTS : BOARD MEMBER

DIRECTOR

January 15, 2020
Ferruccio Romeo
Saugus, MA 01906
. .Re: MUP-20-7789, Town of Winthrop
Dear Mr. Romeo:

On January 10, 2020, you filed a charge of prohibited practice with the
Department of Labor Relations (DLR) alleging that the Town of Winthrop (Town)
had violated Section 10(a)(5) and, derivatively, 10(a)(1) of M.G.L. c.150E (the
Law). The DLR has reviewed and docketed the charge. The DLR has not
directed an investigation into the charge because you, as an individual, may not
have legal standing to file it.

You alleged in your charge that “the Town has committed a prohibited
practice as defined under the Law, both regarding conducting a shift bid for
sergeants only and for unilaterally altering the method of calculating seniority
which is contrary to the express language of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement without notice and an opportunity to bargain.” Your charge appears to
only allege that the Town failed to bargain in good faith with MCOP Local 421,
AFL-CIO.

Individual employees do not have legal standing to claim that an employer
has failed to bargain by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of
employment or repudiating a collective bargaining agreement. The union and the
employer are the only entities that can bring bad faith bargaining charges,
because they are the only parties in the bargaining relationship. Individual
employees have no standing to file a charge against an employer for failing to
bargain in good faith because the employee is not a party to the bargaining
relationship. Quincy City Employees Union, H.L.P.E., 15 MLC 1340, 1355
(1989), aff'd sub. nom. Pattison v. Labor Relations Commission, 309 Mass. App.
Ct. 9 (1991), further rev. den'd, 409 Mass. 1104 (1991).

Consequently, you must show cause in writing why the DLR should not
dismiss your charge with prejudice without an investigation. Any show cause
response that you may wish to submit must be efiled to the DLR at
efile: DLR@mass.gov by the close of business on January 24, 2020. If you do
not efile a show cause response on or before January 24, 2020, the DLR will
dismiss this charge with prejudice without an investigation.

Very truly yours,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS

PUTT &
Philip T. Roberts
Director

CC: Howard Greenspan, Esq.
Austin Faison