Town of Framingham v. Union

• Decision Date: 10 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17–P–1178.,17–P–1178.
• Citation: 93 Mass.App.Ct. 537,106 N.E.3d 1105
• Parties: TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM v. FRAMINGHAM POLICE OFFICERS UNION.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

93 Mass.App.Ct. 537

106 N.E.3d 1105

TOWN OF FRAMINGHAM

v.FRAMINGHAM POLICE OFFICERS UNION.

No. 17–P–1178.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex..

Argued March 9, 2018.

Decided July 10, 2018.

Christopher J. Petrini, Framingham, for the plaintiff.

Dennis M. Coyne, Southborough, for the defendant.

Present: Lemire, Ditkoff, & McDonough, JJ.

DITKOFF, J.

The town of Framingham¹ appeals from a Superior Court order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against the arbitration of a police officer's transfer to the patrol division. We conclude that the transfer and assignment of police officers is within the exclusive managerial authority of the police chief as a matter of public safety pursuant to G. L. c. 41, § 97A, and may not be delegated or contravened through arbitration or collective bargaining. This is so even where it is claimed that the transfer or assignment was motivated by the police chief's perception of the officer's misconduct. Furthermore, we conclude that a municipality seeking to enforce its statutory rights to exclusive managerial authority need not show irreparable harm to be entitled to a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the preliminary injunction.

1. Background. Officer Matthew Gutwill is a police officer in the Framingham police department (department) and a member of the Framingham Police Officers Union (union). The terms of Officer Gutwill's employment are governed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into by the union and Framingham on May 12, 2016.

In 2004, Officer Gutwill began working for the department in the patrol division and was then transferred to the detective bureau, where he served from 2006 to 2008. In Framingham, an assignment to the detective bureau does not confer the rank of detective in the department. It is a specialty assignment distinguished from the patrol division based on the position's role and job requirements, rather than senior employment status within the department. As a detective, Officer Gutwill received a weekly stipend and a more flexible schedule.

In 2008, Officer Gutwill was assigned to work as a detective with a Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) task force. The assignment was consecutively renewed through 2015 but was at all times temporary, made at the sole discretion of the police chief with the express reservation of managerial authority to transfer or to reassign Officer Gutwill at any time.² While working full time and under the operational command of the DEA, Officer Gutwill remained employed by the department and continued to receive his detective stipend. He also enjoyed an increased differential pay rate for nighttime work and additional overtime compensation.

On September 22, 2015, Officer Gutwill lodged a complaint with the department, alleging misconduct against another detective in the department. The complaint triggered a four-month internal investigation, and Officer Gutwill was displeased with its result. Officer Gutwill also claimed that he was subjected to workplace harassment by members of the department in retaliation for making allegations against a fellow detective.

In January, 2016, he was informed that the department intended to rotate him out of the DEA task force at an undetermined date to an undetermined position. The department maintains that the transfer was dictated by sound risk management policy to provide opportunities for other officers, to allow rotated officers to share specialized knowledge and experience within the department, and to reduce entrenchment and other concerns associated with so-called "high risk positions." Officer Gutwill, by contrast, suspected the reassignment was made in retaliation for his initial and ongoing complaints.

Officer Gutwill sought to air his concerns to the police chief in a February 5, 2016, telephone call. During the conversation, Officer Gutwill allegedly made several inflammatory statements to the police chief. Officer Gutwill claimed that a deputy chief lied while testifying in a criminal case, and that another deputy chief was implicated in other misconduct through a Federal wiretap recording. Officer Gutwill also expressed that he was unable to work with fellow detectives as a result of what he believed was retaliatory harassment, and that his complaints were being ignored by the department. Based on these claims, Officer Gutwill told the police chief that he planned to file a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and stated something to the effect that he would "turn the place upside down."

In response, the department retained an attorney on February 16, 2016, to conduct an independent investigation of Officer Gutwill's accusations. The investigation commenced on March 1, 2016, and continued through July, 2016, during which time Officer Gutwill's reassignment was delayed pending the outcome of the investigation. After substantial inquiry, the investigator issued a report dated July 14, 2016, determining that the allegations of retaliation were without merit. Despite the absence of any suggestion in the investigator's report that Officer Gutwill was dishonest,³ the police chief accused Officer Gutwill of denying to the investigator that he made various statements in the February 5, 2016, telephone call.

Based on the police chief's accusations, Officer Gutwill was placed on paid administrative leave on August 19, 2016, through December 12, 2016, when he was suspended for five days without pay.⁴ According to the department, the suspension resulted from violations of rules prohibiting "untruthfulness" concerning Officer Gutwill's denial of the statements made to the police chief on February 5, 2016.

When Officer Gutwill returned to duty on December 19, 2016, after his suspension, he was reassigned from the detective bureau to the patrol division. The department cited "a variety of reasons" for the transfer, "including an independent investigator's finding that he was untruthful during an official investigation," in determining "that it was in the [d]epartment's best interest to assign him to the [p]atrol [d]ivision." Officer Gutwill immediately challenged the decision in a verbal grievance, which was denied by the police chief.⁵

The union responded by submitting a written grievance on behalf of Officer Gutwill on December 21, 2016, alleging that his reassignment from the detective bureau to the patrol division constituted "discipline" without "just cause," in violation of the CBA. The union requested the immediate reinstatement of Officer Gutwill to the detective bureau. The department denied this grievance on the ground that the Legislature had declared that the assignments of police officers is "an exclusive managerial prerogative" not subject to collective bargaining. The Framingham town manager upheld the denial. Pursuant to the CBA, the union filed a demand for arbitration on January 17, 2017, on behalf of Officer Gutwill.

On March 2, 2017, Framingham filed a civil complaint and moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration, which was duly opposed by the union. After a hearing, a Superior Court judge (motion judge) denied the preliminary injunction in a decision entered June 28, 2017.⁶ We have jurisdiction over Framingham's interlocutory appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 118.⁷ See Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union v. Bristol, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 461, 464, 833 N.E.2d 1182 (2005) ; DeCroteau v. DeCroteau, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 903, 903, 65 N.E.3d 1217 (2016).

2. Standard of review. "We review the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion." Eaton v. Federal Natl. Mort. Assn., 462 Mass. 569, 574, 969 N.E.2d 1118 (2012). In doing so, we determine "whether the judge applied proper legal standards and whether there was reasonable support for his evaluation of factual questions." Doe v. Superintendent of Schs. of Weston, 461 Mass. 159, 164, 959 N.E.2d 403 (2011), quoting from Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733, 741, 897 N.E.2d 548 (2008). "The trial court's legal conclusions, however, are ‘subject to broad review and will be reversed if incorrect.’ " LeClair v. Norwell, 430 Mass. 328, 331, 719 N.E.2d 464 (1999), quoting from Packaging Indus. Group, Inc. v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 616, 405 N.E.2d 106 (1980).

3. Standard for preliminary injunction. "When a private party seeks a preliminary injunction, the moving party is required to show that an irreparable injury would occur without immediate injunctive relief." LeClair, 430 Mass. at 331, 719 N.E.2d 464, citing Cheney, 380 Mass. at 617, 405 N.E.2d 106. "When, however, a suit is brought either by the government or a citizen acting as a private attorney general to enforce a statute or a declared policy of the Legislature irreparable harm is not required." LeClair, supra, citing Edwards v. Boston, 408 Mass. 643, 646–647, 562 N.E.2d 834 (1990). Rather, the equitable considerations justifying the need for injunctive relief are supplied by showing that an injunction is in the public interest. See Caplan v. Acton, 479 Mass. 69, 75, 92 N.E.3d 691 (2018). Thus, because Framingham brought this suit as a government plaintiff, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce its rights under G. L. c. 41, § 97A, and G. L. c. 150C, § 2(b ), it must only "show a likelihood of success on the merits and that the requested relief would be in the public interest." Caplan, supra, citing LeClair, supra at 331–332, 719 N.E.2d 464. Accord Commonwealth v. Mass. CRINC, 392 Mass. 79, 89, 466 N.E.2d 792 (1984).

The motion judge, while assuming that Framingham had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, denied Framingham's request to enjoin arbitration on the basis that it had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. Framingham, however, repeatedly asserted that arbitration would violate G. L. c. 41, § 97A, which (Framingham argued) makes the assignment of police officers a nondelegable, inherent managerial...