Pattison v. Labor Relations Com'n
Decision Date | 25 March 1991 |
Docket Number | 89-P-384,Nos. 89-P-383,s. 89-P-383 |
Citation | 565 N.E.2d 801,30 Mass.App.Ct. 9 |
Parties | , 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2815 Nina PATTISON v. LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (and a companion case 1 ). |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Alan J. McDonald, Newton, for Nina Pattison.
Jean Strauten Driscoll, Boston, for Labor Relations Com'n.
David F. Grunebaum, Boston, for employer.
Robert M. Schwartz, Boston, for Quincy City Employees Union, H.L.P.E.
Before DREBEN, KAPLAN and PORADA, JJ.
On March 18, 1985, Nina Pattison, a public employee serving at the Quincy City Hospital as director of volunteer services, received a letter from Margaret Corbett, on behalf of the employer Hospital, "terminating" her. She wished to "grieve" her dismissal but, she asserts, her relevant collective bargaining agent, Quincy City Employees Union, H.L.P.E., failed arbitrarily to press the grievance on her behalf and ultimately to request arbitration, thus encompassing violations of its duty of fair representation (DFR).
In undertaking litigation, Pattison would have done well to seek a forum that would allow her to join both the union and the employer, for those parties putatively committed related wrongs. The decisional law in 1985, before the ruling in Leahy v. Local 1526, Am. Fedn. of State, County, & Mun. Employees, 399 Mass. 341, 504 N.E.2d 602 (1987), left unsettled (and largely unthought of) the question whether or to what extent the Labor Relations Commission (Commission) had "primary jurisdiction" in DFR cases. 2 So Pattison's attorney might have considered choosing between starting an action in Superior Court and bringing charges before the Commission. There would be little difficulty in joining the two parties in the court action. Attempting to charge both in Commission proceedings would encounter difficulties, as will appear.
Pattison's counsel chose the Commission route. On August 29, 1985, Pattison filed a charge of prohibited practice under G.L. c. 150E, § 10(b )(1), against the union by reason of its breaches of DFR (Charge MUPL-2883). 3 Recognizing, apparently, that an employer's breach of a "just cause" provision of a labor contract is not itself cognizable as a prohibited practice under the statute, Pattison, with some ingenuity, attempted instead to charge the employer with a prohibited practice under G.L. c. 150E, § 10(a )(5) and (6) 4 for failing to carry out an alleged collective bargaining obligation. This was framed as an obligation to refrain from changing unilaterally the terms and conditions of employment, including changes in the progressive disciplinary procedures for employees and in the just cause standard for dismissal (Charge MUP-6037). When the Commission proceedings were already under way, as described below, Pattison, for better assurance, on December 31, 1985, did commence an action in Superior Court against the union and the employer; the action remains at issue but has not proceeded further.
After investigation, the Commission issued complaints corresponding to the charges (although, as to the collective bargaining complaint, the Commission was doubtful of its own jurisdiction). Initially the Commission ruled that the complaints should be "bifurcated," but it soon changed its mind and ordered them to be consolidated and tried together. Trial before two Commissioners 5 occurred in ten installments over a period of eight months, from August, 1986 to April, 1987. On January 24, 1989, the Commission filed its "Decision" upholding the DFR complaint but dismissing the collective bargaining complaint. The union appeals to this court from the former disposition (appeal No. 89-P-384), Pattison from the latter (No. 89-P-383). See G.L. c. 150E, § 11, par. 4.
To sum up our views. In No. 89-P-384: (1) Pattison had the full burden to establish that the union discriminated against her or acted with egregious disregard of her rights as a grievant. The Commission's findings for Pattison on these issues are well supported by substantial evidence, G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7)(e ). (2) As to Pattison's right to a material remedy, 6 burdens of proof are adjusted in the light of the union's delinquency, which aborted the arbitral process: Pattison had to show that her claim of dismissal without just cause was not clearly frivolous; once she did so, the burden shifted to the union to show that the grievance was clearly nonmeritorious. The Commission's findings that Pattison made her prima facie showing, and the union failed in its opposition, are also well supported by substantial evidence. (3) Pattison, having thus succeeded on the facts, was entitled to a "provisional make whole remedy" against the union (the only defending party properly before the Commission), that is, recovery for wrongful dismissal, which, however, is subject to offset by the union. Among other things, this may take the form of a division of the liability between the union and the employer.
To revert to the point that the union failed in its burden of overcoming a prima facie case, the union has claimed that the policy of the Commission in imposing that burden was not made clear in the course of the hearings, with the consequence that the union was unsure about the weight of the evidence it had to present. Upon a reading of the whole record, we think the complaint is justified, and will therefore remand the case to the Commission if the union expresses an election to offer additional proof.
No. 89-P-383: We agree with the Commission's dismissal of the complaint. Pattison, as employee, could not complain of the alleged bargaining violation on the part of the employer.
No. 89-P-384--Duty of Fair Representation
(1) Union's violations. From the inordinately extended record, 7 the Commission has abstracted the following statement, which we consider to be a fair summary of the basic facts. 8
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Com'n
...Lee v. Labor Relations Commn., 21 Mass.App.Ct. 166, 167-169, 485 N.E.2d 971 (1985). Compare, on facts, Pattison v. Labor Relations Commn., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 9, 11, 23, 565 N.E.2d 801 (1991). The city For the purpose of decision we assume, without deciding, that an involuntary retirement invol......
-
Office & Prof'l Emps. Int'l Union v. Commonwealth Emp't Relations Bd.
...its duty of fair representation, the question becomes whether the employee is entitled to a remedy. See Pattison v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 9, 17, 565 N.E.2d 801 (1991). In making that determination, the board has long applied a burden-shifting framework, under which the "......
-
Miller v. Labor Relations Com'n
...Officers Fedn. v. Labor Relations Commn., supra 410 Mass. at 893, 575 N.E.2d 1131. As we said in Pattison v. Labor Relations Commn., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 9, 10, 565 N.E.2d 801 (1991): "In undertaking litigation, [the plaintiff] would have done well to seek a forum that would allow [him] to join ......
-
Best v. Rome
...412 Mass. 164, 588 N.E.2d 1 n. 5. (1992); Leahy v. Local 1526, AFSCME, 399 Mass. 341, 504 N.E.2d 602 (1987); Pattison v. Labor Rel. Comm'n., 30 Mass.App.Ct. 9, 565 N.E.2d 801 (1991); Reilly v. Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union, 22 Mass.App. Ct. 558, 495 N.E.2d 856 (1986). Using federal p......