Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/477/477mass92.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:27:36+00:00

Document:
Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.
T. Jane Gabriel for the defendant.
Alan H. Shapiro (John M. Becker also present) for the intervener.
Mathew D. Jones, for Massachusetts Teachers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
informed the Legislature that several similar requests for salary increases had been rejected by the Legislature; that attempts to renegotiate the agreements with the unions had failed; and that approval of the request would require renegotiating several other collective bargaining agreements that the Legislature had already approved.
The unions both filed a charge of prohibited practice with the Department of Labor Relations (department), arguing, in essence, that the letter was a violation of the Commonwealth's purported duty to support an appropriation's request pursuant to G. L. c. 150E, § 7 (b), and also that the letter constituted a failure to bargain in good faith, in violation of G. L. c. 150E, § 10 (a) (5). In January, 2014, a hearing officer with the department agreed with the unions and found that the Commonwealth had violated its § 7 (b) duty and had committed a prohibited practice under § 10 (a) (5) by failing to bargain in good faith. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (board) [Note 2] affirmed, the Commonwealth appealed from the decision, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
We reverse the board's decision and conclude that the Secretary's inclusion of information about the anticipated fiscal effects of a legislative decision to fund the collective bargaining agreements in his request for an appropriation did not violate § 7 (b) or constitute a prohibited practice.
Background. The facts of this case are not in dispute. In April, 2009, the Commonwealth, represented by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, and the Coalition of Public Safety (COPS) entered into collective bargaining agreements for the periods of July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, and July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013 (2010-2013 agreement). The 2010-2013 agreement called for annual salary increases of one per cent, three per cent, and three per cent, respectively, over the three years it covered. The Commonwealth had also entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU) that covered the same period as the COPS 2010-2013 agreement and that also contained cost items that required appropriation.
Court for fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010). In his accompanying message, the Governor estimated that there would be about $1.5 billion less in revenue compared with earlier projections because "Massachusetts continue[d] to experience the effects of a global economic downturn unseen since the Great Depression."
"In addition to previous requests, I am fulfilling my statutory obligation to ask your consideration of the attached additional collective bargaining items in Section 2 of H.2, the Governor's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal. These items fund the collective bargaining agreements negotiated some time ago with [MCOFU] (Unit 4) and [COPS] (Unit 5). We are submitting them now because their costs first occur in fiscal year 2011.
"These items provide for collective bargaining salary increases similar to contracts that were not funded during calendar year 2009. We have worked with the MCOFU and COPS leadership to reach agreement on contracts similar to those signed by other unions for this fiscal year and have failed to reach an agreement. Funding of these items will trigger a reopener in collective bargaining agreements that the Legislature recently did fund only because they contained delays in the salary increases."
agreement covering the 2010-2013 period, however, resulted in the delay of each of the wage increases by one year.
About one week after the Secretary's June, 2010, request letter, COPS filed a charge of prohibited practice with the department, alleging that the Commonwealth failed to bargain in good faith, as required by § 10 (a) (5), because the Secretary's letter did not support the 2010-2013 agreement. [Note 4] A complaint was issued following the department's investigation. The parties waived a hearing and submitted the case to the hearing officer on a stipulated record.
In January, 2014, the hearing officer found that the Commonwealth had violated the law because it had refused "to take all necessary and appropriate steps to support the collective bargaining agreement." The hearing officer ordered the Commonwealth to "[s]ubmit to the Legislature a request for an appropriation to fund the cost items and take all appropriate steps to support the [2010-2013 agreement]."
The Commonwealth appealed to the board, which affirmed the decision of the hearing officer. [Note 5] The Commonwealth appealed from the board's decision to the Appeals Court, G. L. c. 150E, § 11 (i), and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
Standard of review. This court reviews the board's decisions in accordance with the standards laid out in G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7), which provides that a final administrative agency decision will be set aside if, among other grounds, it is "[u]nsupported by substantial evidence," G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (e), or "[a]rbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7) (g). See G. L. c. 150E, § 11 (i). See also Somerville v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 470 Mass. 563 , 567-568 (2015).
good faith under § 10 (a) (5). The board concluded that by failing to affirmatively support the agreement, as required by § 7 (b), the Commonwealth had committed a breach of its duty to bargain in good faith, as required by § 10 (a) (5).
We are not persuaded that the two provisions operate in the manner suggested by the board. In our view, there are three flaws in the board's decision. First, the board erred in determining that § 7 (b) requires an employer not only to submit but also affirmatively to support a § 7 (b) appropriation request; second, its conclusion that the Commonwealth failed to bargain in good faith in violation of § 10 (a) (5) is unsupported by substantial evidence; and third, the board erroneously conflated the employer's obligations under the two statutory provisions.
"The employer . . . shall submit to the appropriate legislative body within thirty days after the date on which the agreement is executed by the parties, a request for an appropriation necessary to fund the cost items contained therein . . . . If the appropriate legislative body duly rejects the request for an appropriation necessary to fund the cost items, such cost items shall be returned to the parties for further bargaining."
predecessor negotiated collective bargaining agreement), or when the employer submits a request that makes full funding of the agreement contingent on voters passing an override to cover a budget shortfall, Local 1652, Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters v. Framingham, 442 Mass. 463 , 464 (2004) (Framingham) (officials did not fulfil obligation under § 7 [b] where budget submitted to town meeting made full funding of collective bargaining agreement contingent on voters passing property tax override). We have also held that although successor officials must submit the request, they may not be compelled to publicly support a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by their predecessors, because the successor officials' "constituents are entitled to the unfettered exercise of their judgment on matters of policy." Labor Relations Comm'n v. Selectmen of Dracut, 374 Mass. 619 , 625 (1978).
Contrary to a number of board decisions cited by the board and COPS, we have never required officials affirmatively to support a § 7 (b) request. Contrast Town of Belmont, 22 M.L.C. 1636, 1639 (1996); Town of Rockland, 16 M.L.C. 1001, 1005 (1989); City of Chelsea, 13 M.L.C. 1144, 1149-1150 (1986); Worcester Sch. Comm., 5 M.L.C. 1080, 1083 (1978). Based on our review, these cases trace back to Turners Falls Fire Dist., 4 M.L.C. 1658, 1662 (1977), where the board stated: "It is well-settled law that an employer's refusal to take affirmative steps to support the terms of a collective bargaining agreement before the legislative body constitutes a violation of its duty to bargain in good faith." The board cites only to Mendes v. Taunton, 366 Mass. 109 (1974), for that proposition of law. The Mendes decision, however, merely requires that an official, even a successor official, must submit a request to the appropriate legislative body. Id. at 118-119.
We cited several of these board cases with approval in Framingham. See Framingham, 442 Mass. at 469-470 & n.6. See also id. at 479-480 (Sosman, J., dissenting). Those cases were cited, however, to illustrate that the obligation to seek funding is "unconditional" in the sense that requests for funding may not be conditioned on the occurrence of another event under the language of § 7 (b). Id. at 469. To the extent that these cited decisions of the board (and any dicta in Framingham) suggest that a lack of affirmative support inevitably constitutes a violation of § 7 (b), they rest on an error of law, and we do not follow them.
Here, the employer submitted the § 7 (b) request to the Legislature and did not condition funding the request on the occurrence of another event. Thus, there was no violation of § 7 (b), and the board's conclusion to the contrary was an error of law.
as a sincere effort to reach a common ground." Id.
A comprehensive analysis of the precise contours of what constitutes good faith during negotiations would fill volumes, but a few examples may be helpful. Appellate courts in the Commonwealth have held that a public employer violates the obligation to bargain in good faith when the employer refuses to bargain at all, id. at 574-575, or when it reaches an agreement with a union but then makes its execution contingent on approval by a supervisory entity, Springfield Hous. Auth. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 653 , 654, 658-659 (1983) (bad faith where housing authority ratified agreement with condition that it be approved by agency of Executive Office of Communities and Development, which had supervisory functions over housing authorities).
What emerges from the case law is that for a public employer to comply with the obligation to bargain and negotiate in good faith it must have an open and fair mind during the negotiating and bargaining process. A contrary conclusion would run afoul of the plain language of G. L. c. 150E, §§ 6 and 10 (a) (5). See Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass. 607 , 609 (1983) ("In construing a statute, words are to be accorded their ordinary meaning and approved usage").
Here, the board concluded that the Commonwealth failed to bargain in good faith in 2009 because it included statements regarding the fiscal consequences of approving the submitted appropriation in its § 7 (b) request submitted in June, 2010. This conclusion was unsupported by substantial evidence.
There was no evidence presented to the board alleging bad faith on the part of the Commonwealth at the time the agreement was reached. The only purported evidence of bad faith was the letter from the Secretary containing pertinent information concerning the fiscal implications of funding the 2010-2013 agreement, sent thirteen months after negotiations concluded and while the Commonwealth continued to find itself in the throes of a nearly unprecedented economic crisis.
The temporal gap is indisputable, and there was no evidence presented suggesting that the Secretary's characterization of the economic consequences of funding the agreement was inaccurate. In these circumstances, it cannot reasonably be said that the employer did not have an "open and fair mind" when it concluded its agreement with the unions, simply based on the Secretary's letter.
c. Connection between § 7 (b) and § 10 (a) (5). Our review of the board's decision in the case, as well as its prior decisions, suggests that the board has viewed the employer's obligation to submit an appropriations request under § 7 (b) as directly linked to its obligation to bargain in good faith under § 10 (a) (5).
In essence, the board appears to have used its interpretation of § 7 (b) to impose an ongoing obligation on the employer that covers the period of time between the conclusion of negotiations and the submission of the § 7 (b) request. Under this view, the employer's failure to affirmatively support an agreement shows that it did not have an "open and fair mind" when negotiating a collective bargaining agreement because the "affirmative support" obligation reaches back to the moment in time when the bargain is struck and thus could be said to be dispositive of the employer's state of mind during negotiations. See, e.g., Turners Falls Fire Dist., 4 M.L.C. at 1662.
Because of the distinct and different points of temporal focus found in the respective statutes' plain language, it cannot be said that a violation of § 7 (b) (e.g., submitting a contingent request), in and of itself, constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith under § 10 (a) (5).
negotiations. For example, a particularly negative letter requesting an appropriation but recommending rejection sent shortly after negotiations concluded would be probative of a lack of good faith during negotiations. Such circumstances might constitute evidence that the employer had entered into the agreement with the intention of repudiating it before the legislative body. Those circumstances are not present here, however.
Conclusion. We reverse the board's decision finding that the Commonwealth violated G. L. c. 150E, § 7 (b), and committed a prohibited practice in violation of G. L. c. 150E, § 10 (a) (5). The board's order is vacated.
[Note 1] Coalition of Public Safety, intervener.
[Note 2] Formerly the Labor Relations Commission. See G. L. c. 23, § 9O, as appearing in St. 2007, c. 145, § 5. References to the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (board) include the former Labor Relations Commission.
[Note 3] The positions of the Secretary of Administration and Finance (Secretary) and the Commissioner of Administration were effectively merged in 2012. See G. L. c. 7, § 4, as amended through St. 2012, c. 165, § 33. The parties do not dispute that it is now the Secretary who is responsible for submitting budget requests pursuant to G. L. c. 150E, § 7 (b), and that the former Secretary acted in that capacity.
[Note 4] The Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU) filed a similar charge three months later, and the cases were consolidated. MCOFU subsequently withdrew its complaint on the ground that the issue had become moot.
[Note 5] Because the board incorporated the facts set forth by the hearing officer, fully affirmed the officer's analysis, and agreed with all of his conclusions, we refer to the two decisions collectively as the board's.
[Note 6] In Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 v. School Comm. of Boston, 370 Mass. 455 , 474-475 (1976), we stated that "[t]he mayor, of course, may recommend disapproval of the request." It is important to note that in that case it was the school committee that negotiated with the unions and not the mayor, and thus if the mayor recommended his disapproval it could not have been argued that the negotiations took place in bad faith based on the mayor's subsequent conduct. See Alliance, AFSCME/SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Secretary of Admin., 413 Mass. 377 , 380, 382-383 (1992) (Alliance) (successor governor may recommend disapproval); Labor Relations Comm'n v. Selectmen of Dracut, 374 Mass. 619 , 626 (1978) (same for successor selectmen).
[Note 7] In Alliance, 413 Mass. at 379, during the final days of Governor Michael Dukakis's administration, the Secretary signed a collective bargaining agreement with a number of unions. The § 7 (b) request obligation fell to the successor administration of Governor William Weld. Id. at 380. At the time of the § 7 (b) request, Governor Weld also sent a written message to the Legislature urging it to reject the appropriation request because of the financial circumstances of the Commonwealth. Id. In that case, neither party raised the issue whether Governor Weld's message violated § 7 (b), and the court, without itself remarking on the issue, had no trouble determining that the Governor's actions in sending the message were appropriate. Id. at 382-383.
[Note 8] The Commonwealth is a public employer, and the unions are employee organizations within the meaning of G. L. c. 150E, § 1.
"The employer and the exclusive representative shall . . . negotiate in good faith with respect to wages, hours, standards or productivity and performance, and any other terms and conditions of employment . . . ."
"(5) Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required in [§ 6] . . . ."
[Note 11] Although submission of the § 7 (b) request occurred outside the thirty-day window mentioned in the quoted statute, neither party suggests the timing has any bearing on the case.

References: § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 10
 § 11
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 11
 v. 
 § 10
 § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 7
 § 10
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 10
 § 7
 § 10
 § 9
 § 5
 § 4
 § 33
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 1
 § 7