Opinion
No. 15–P–684.
07-28-2016
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Council 93 v. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 93 (union), appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award, and allowing the cross motion of the defendant, Board of Higher Education, to confirm the award. The union challenges the arbitrator's decision on public policy grounds. We affirm.
A three-part analysis determines whether an arbitral award violates public policy. “First, the public policy must be well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.” Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Assn., 74 Mass.App.Ct. 379, 381 (2009), quoting from Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Jail Officers & Employees of Suffolk County, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 903, 904 (2007), S. C., 451 Mass. 698 (2008). “Second, the conduct involved cannot be ‘disfavored conduct, in the abstract.’ “ Ibid., quoting from Massachusetts Hy. Dept. v. American Fedn. of State, County & Mun. Employees, Council 93, 420 Mass. 13, 17 (1995). “Third, ‘the arbitrator's award reinstating the employee [must violate] public policy to such an extent that the employee's conduct would have required dismissal.’ “ Ibid., quoting from Bureau of Special Investigations v. Coalition of Pub. Safety, 430 Mass. 601, 605 (2000).
The public policy analysis simply does not apply to the facts of this case. Here, a community college terminated the employment of a police officer, Susan Ledoux, after she failed to provide adequate medical documentation that she was capable of returning to work following an extended sick leave. The decision to terminate was made after the college's human resources department found Ledoux's submitted documentation to be insufficient to rebut other medical documents the college had indicating that Ledoux was totally disabled. On appeal, the union claims that the college employee that rejected Ledoux's submission violated public policy by substituting his own opinion about Ledoux's capacity to return to work with that of a duly licensed physician. The argument is without merit. First, the employee was simply making an administrative decision based on the facts before him, and well within the parameters of the controlling collective bargaining agreement. Second, the complained-of action was not performed by a grieving employee ordered to be reinstated, but by a third party simply doing his job. Contrast Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Assn., supra. The motion to vacate was properly denied.
Judgment affirmed.