Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Com'n
| Decision Date | 12 September 1983 |
| Citation | 16 Mass.App.Ct. 953,451 N.E.2d 731 |
| Parties | BOSTON POLICE PATROLMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Jean Strauten Driscoll, Boston, for defendant.
Frank J. McGee, Marshfield, submitted brief, for plaintiff.
Before BROWN, KAPLAN and DREBEN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This appeal (G.L. c. 150E, § 11) by the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc. (association), from an order of the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission (commission) rests solely on the argument that G.L. c. 150E, § 10(b )(1) is not intended to regulate internal union affairs. The association does not challenge the findings of the commission but claims that it improperly exercised jurisdiction in considering and sustaining charges filed in 1975 by two policemen, Paul A. Johnston and Joseph McNulty, that the association had engaged in prohibited practices (G.L. c. 150E, § 10[b ] ) by refusing to recognize the men as members in good standing in the association. We affirm the order of the commission which entered a cease and desist order and granted other relief. 1
The facts found by the commission fully support its conclusion that the association's refusal to represent the men was not a matter of legitimate internal union discipline but was rather an attempt by the union, in violation of G.L. c. 150E, § 3, to decide for itself the scope of its appropriate bargaining unit. Originally certified in 1967 as exclusive representative of a bargaining unit composed of all patrolmen in the city of Boston, the association in 1974 sought, by filing a petition with the commission, to exclude from the unit patrolmen working in two divisions, Planning and Research (P & R) and Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a unit responsible for seeking out police corruption and misconduct. In that year a computer printout erroneously listed Johnston and McNulty, who were both P & R employees, as having performed overtime for SIU. This printout fell into the hands of the association in the summer of 1975. Despite the men's assurances and persuasive evidence showing the computer error, the association, on September 18, 1975, determined that the men were members of SIU. Although the commission had not as yet acted on the association's petition, the union refused to consider the men as members in good standing of the association.
On February 9, 1976, the commission issued its decision and held that SIU employees should be excluded from the unit, 2 but that P & R employees properly belonged within it. On March 9, 1976, within a month of the decision, the association filed another petition (CAS-2109) before the commission seeking to exclude Johnston and McNulty on the ground that they were SIU employees. The two men were allowed to intervene in the petition (the charges filed by them in 1975, which led to the complaint of the commission in the present case, were held in abeyance pending the disposition of the petition filed by the association) and on April 11, 1978, the commission ruled, in Boston Police Patrolmen's Assn. v. Boston, 4 M.L.C. 1855, 1862 (1978) (CAS-2109), that Johnston and McNulty were not then, nor had they ever been, employed by the SIU in any capacity.
The men were not reinstated until July 19, 1978. When in August, 1978, Johnston notified the association that he planned to seek an association office, he was informed that he was ineligible to run because he had not been a member in good standing for twelve months, as required by the association's by-laws.
On this record, we can find no fault with the commission's conclusion "that the association's course of conduct did not relate solely to union membership" but rather that the union was attempting to determine the bargaining unit.
The refusal of membership was not purely a question of internal union discipline but was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collective Bargaining Reform v. Labor Rel.
...Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 236, 239 (1982). See Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 953, 955 (1983). Finally, there is no support in the record for COBRA's assertion that the commission's order of ......
-
Collective Bargaining Reform Association v. Labor Relations Commission
...Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 236, 239 (1982). See Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 953, 955 (1983). Finally, there is no support in the record for COBRA's assertion that the commission's order of ......
-
Arnold v. Arnold
... ... Support and Divorce Proceedings, 18 Boston B.J. (No. 4) 33, 36-38 (1974). Cf. Freedman, ... See Batchelder v. Allied Stores Intl., Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 86-87, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983). No ... ...
-
Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc. v. Labor Relations Commission
...Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc. v. Labor Relations Commission Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Sept 12, 1983 16 Mass.App. 953, 451 N.E.2d 731. ...
-
The Hobson's Choice in Union Discipline Cases: When Union Members Are Forced to Decide Between Fired or Fined
...Cir. 1984) (referring to the NLRA), aff’d and remanded , 475 U.S. 192 (1986); Bos. Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. Labor Relations Comm’n, 451 N.E.2d 731, 733 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (using the phrase “labor laws”). 66. Memorandum from Barry J. Kearney, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Div. of Advice, NLRB, ......