Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Robert DeLeo
Speaker of the House
The Honorable Therese Murray
Senate President
State House, Boston
Dear Mr. Speaker and President Murray,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association asks you to oppose Section 6 of the fiscal 2011 supplemental budget bill (House 3695), filed by the Governor on August 25. Specifically, we ask that Section 6 be omitted from any bills reported by the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means.
Section 6 would effectively overturn the important October 2010 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) that the “evergreen” provision in a Boston Housing Authority collective bargaining contract was not valid. This decision has been respected by cities and towns across the state, and there is no reason to reverse the SJC on this matter. In fact, the proposal in Section 6 would be extremely disruptive and costly to many cities and towns throughout Massachusetts.
The SJC found that the law is clearly written to “limit the term of a collective bargaining agreement to not more than three years.” The Court reasoned that “[t]his limitation serves several important and beneficial purposes, including giving employees the opportunity to reevaluate their choice of a bargaining representative at regular intervals; compelling the parties to reassess the terms of their CBA at least once every three years; preventing public employers from unduly tying the hands of their successors in dealing with changing and challenging circumstances; and protecting the public interest in the proper management of limited public resources and the efficient provision of government services.”
The Court noted that the parties to a CBA, under Section 9 of Chapter 150E of the General Laws, are still able to “enter into a subsequent agreement extending the prior terms and conditions of their agreement, thereby maintaining the status quo while negotiations for a new CBA are ongoing.” Bridge agreements can preserve CBA terms until a successor agreement is approved.
By far the most objectionable and egregious part of Section 6 is the proposal, in paragraph (B), to retroactively reinstate evergreen provisions that were invalidated by the SJC ruling. This would cause enormous hardship to any affected city or town that has made management and personnel decisions since 2010, acting in good faith based on the ruling by the state’s highest court. Retroactively reinstating evergreen provisions would be enormously disruptive, as all previous management decisions during this time, including disciplinary and administrative actions, layoffs and hiring decisions, and more, could be subject to retroactive appeals and costly arbitration or court action. This would be extremely disruptive and would result in unnecessary, unproductive and unanticipated litigation and costs. Reinstating evergreen clauses on a retroactive basis would create serious problems for communities across the state.
Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact MMA Deputy Legislative Director John Robertson at any time.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA