Arbitration – Collective bargaining agreement

Listen to this article

Where an arbitrator found that the city of Medford violated a collective bargaining agreement with a union when the Chief of Police made an impermissible staffing decision based on public policy concerns, the court is constrained to affirm the arbitration award because it was lawful in light of the fact that the parties lawfully negotiated the collective bargaining agreement and agreed to submit any grievances about staffing issues to arbitration.

“… Here, the City alleges that G.L.c. 41, section 97A was violated by the arbitrator when he ruled that contractual language required certain police staffing levels. But when a statute is subordinate to a collective bargaining agreement (as is the case here), the agreement — not the law — controls. …

“This Court is sympathetic to the plight of a Police Chief who simply wants to properly manage his department to provide the maximum degree of public safety for his citizens. This goal should be paramount, and the union should so respect that public safety concern. Instead, however, I am constrained by appellate court precedent to uncomfortably affirm the arbitrator’s award. The City and the union did, for better or worse at one point, lawfully negotiate under G.L.c. 150E, section 6 the staffing requirement at issue here. The City also agreed — again, for better or worse — to submit any grievance about that staffing issue to arbitration. Both the City and the union participated in that arbitration process.

“Now, the City is disappointed with the result. But its remedy lies not in a judicial forum, but in the political process. This Court is constrained by the agreement between the City and the union, and declines to inject itself into such an affray. The arbitration award does not violate the law; it must be upheld.”

City of Medford v. Medford Police Patrolman’s Association (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-052-12) (3 pages) (Curran, J.) (Middlesex Superior Court) (Docket No. 09-CV-4644-F) (Sept. 9, 2011).