Free Newsletter
Labor – Duty of fair representation – Grievance
Department of Labor Relations
Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff//July 23, 2026//
Where a prohibited practice charge has been filed alleging that a union’s handling of a grievance related to the discharge of a state employee violated G.L.c. 150E, the charge should be dismissed because the union did not fail to respond to an email from the employee, nor did the union fail to inform her of the status of the grievance.
“The issue in this case is whether the SEIU, Local 509 (Union) breached its duty of fair representation to [the employee] in violation of Section 10(b)(1) of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law) by not responding to a June 1, 2024 email from [the employee] and, as of September 15, 2024, not informing [her] that: i) the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) had denied her grievance (Grievance) at Step II; ii) the Union had appealed that denial to Step III; and iii) that the Commonwealth had failed to issue a Step III written reply within 30 days of the appeal. Based on the record, and for the reasons explained below, I find that the Union did not violate the Law. …
“… Even if the Union had not responded, a mere failure to respond to an email, without more, would not violate Section 10(b)(1) of the Law. … I therefore dismiss this allegation. …
“The Complaint alleges that as of September 15, 2024, the Union had not notified [the employee] that the Commonwealth had denied the Grievance at Step II. The Commonwealth never responded to the Grievance at Step II. Moreover, by September 11, 2024, … [the employee] knew that the Union had advanced the Grievance to Step III, and, because they were discussing scheduling the Step III hearing, that no written reply at Step III could have issued. Even if the Union had not informed [the employee] of these three items as of September 15, 2024, that, without more, would not violate Section 10(b)(1) of the Law. … I therefore dismiss this allegation. …
“The Union did not fail to respond to [the employee]’s June 1, 2024 email. Further, the Union did not fail to inform [her] of the status of the Grievance as of September 15, 2024. The Union did not violate Section 10(b)(1) of the Law as alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, I dismiss the Complaint.”
In the Matter of: SEIU, Local 509 (Lawyers Weekly No. 21-007-26) (13 pages) (Sunkenberg, Hearing Officer) Ian O. Russell for the union; Lorna Andino, pro se (Docket No. SUPL-24-10690) (June 18, 2026).
