Opinion
19-P-1772
10-26-2020
Suzete B. COSTA v. COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The plaintiff appeals from a final decision of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (board), which affirmed the dismissal of her prohibited practice charge against the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 6 (union), in connection with a grievance that it filed on her behalf. We affirm.
Background. The plaintiff was employed by the office of court management for the Massachusetts trial court (trial court) and maintained a membership with the union. Seeking a promotional opportunity from her position as an administrative assistant, the plaintiff applied for an internally posted procurement coordinator position within the fiscal affairs department in February 2013. She interviewed for the position in October 2013. In December 2014, the plaintiff was notified that the trial court had moved forward with a different candidate. In January 2015, the union filed a grievance on the plaintiff's behalf, challenging the hiring decision.
The plaintiff had earlier been informed of her nonselection for the position. Because the initial interview had been conducted by one person, instead of a three-person panel as required by trial court policy, the plaintiff was permitted to reinterview for the position before a three-person panel.
Following the interview, the plaintiff contacted the human resources department several times for an update, ultimately hiring an attorney to contact the union and the trial court on her behalf.
--------
Thereafter, the union and the trial court engaged in the four-step grievance procedure outlined in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Following the step 3 hearing in July 2016, the union and the trial court reached a settlement agreement. The union forwarded the terms of the settlement to the plaintiff in March 2017, which included a position reclassification to a higher grade and pay level as well as back wages. The plaintiff did not agree with the terms of the settlement or the lack of communication with her during its formation.
In August 2017, the plaintiff filed a prohibited practice charge with the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) alleging breach of the union's duty of fair representation under G. L. c. 150E, § 10 (b ) (1). Following an in-person investigation of the plaintiff's allegations in October 2017, a DLR investigator dismissed the plaintiff's charge. The board affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed.
Discussion. Pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14, review of an administrative agency's decision is "limited to an examination of the record to ascertain if the findings are supported by substantial evidence" (quotation omitted). Goncalves v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 289, 295 (1997). The threshold for substantial evidence is met if "a reasonable mind might accept [the evidence] as adequate to support a conclusion." Id., citing G. L. c. 30A, § 14. The board's decision will not be set aside unless it "is marred by legal error or is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 656, 661 (2009).
In reviewing the administrative record, deference is given to the board's specialized knowledge in interpreting collective bargaining agreements and applicable statutory provisions. See Anderson v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Bd., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 908, 910 (2009), citing Worcester v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 438 Mass. 177, 180 (2002). The board also enjoys broad discretion in resolving complaints through prehearing dismissals. See Quincy City Hosp. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 400 Mass. 745, 748 (1987).
On appeal, the plaintiff contends that her charge should not have been dismissed because the evidence showed that the union violated its duty of fair representation in resolving her grievance against the trial court. Specifically, she alleges that the union, rather than diligently representing her interests, allowed her grievance to "needlessly languish for years" due to the union's failure to meet the grievance procedure timeline outlined in the CBA, failed to keep her apprised of the status of her grievance, and settled her claim without her knowledge or approval on unfavorable terms. This conduct, the plaintiff alleges, was highly prejudicial and constituted gross negligence. We disagree.
"A union has a duty to represent its members fairly in connection with issues that arise under a collective bargaining [agreement]." National Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 611, 613 (1995). In discharging this duty, unions are vested with considerable discretion to utilize a "wide range of reasonableness" in determining whether to pursue a grievance. Graham v. Quincy Food Serv. Employees Ass'n & Hosp., Library & Pub. Employees Union, 407 Mass. 601, 606 (1990), quoting Baker v. Local 2977, State Council 93, American Fed'n of State, County, & Mun. Employees, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 439, 441 (1988). This discretion "is exceeded when the union's conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, in bad faith, or (and this may be a variant on arbitrary conduct) grossly inattentive or grossly negligent." National Ass'n of Gov't Employees, 38 Mass. App. Ct. at 613.
Here, the union processed the plaintiff's grievance through step three of the four-step process before ultimately settling the claim with the plaintiff's reclassification into a higher paid position with some back pay. Although the process took considerably longer than that contemplated by the grievance procedure, there is no indication in the record that the plaintiff was injured by the delay. Contrast United Steelworkers of Am., 74 Mass. App. Ct. at 662-664 (union's representation caused employee to miss deadlines, depriving him of remedy). Likewise, although the union did not respond to every one of the plaintiff's communications, the record reflects that it did give her periodic updates of the status of her claim including its pursuit of settlement, and that any lapses in communication did not compromise her position. Contrast National Ass'n of Gov't. Employees, 38 Mass. App. Ct. at 613-614 (union failed to respond to employee's inquiries regarding claim, while failing to process it at all).
With respect to the settlement, notwithstanding the union's failure to involve the plaintiff in its negotiation, the union was able to obtain a classification into a higher paid position with some back pay. Although the plaintiff contends that the union settled her claim for a "fraction of its value," the board could reasonably find that the union made a reasoned judgment to forego the risk of arbitration, given its experience in these sorts of claims, in favor of a secure result favorable to the plaintiff. See Peabody Fed'n of Teachers, Local 1289, AFT, AFLCIO v. School Comm. of Peabody, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 410, 415-416 (1990) (settlement by union of member's claim short of that to which member claimed entitlement did not warrant intervention where claim was unsupported by showing that "union ha[d] sold the member out in some invidious, arbitrary, or unfair fashion"). Here, there was no evidence that the union's settlement of the grievance was improperly motivated. See Baker, 25 Mass. App. Ct. at 441 (unions permitted "wide range of reasonableness" in representing employees and are vested with considerable discretion not to pursue grievance as long as actions are not improperly motivated). Contrast Graham, 407 Mass. at 609-610 (history of hostility and animosity between member and union officials concerning running of union arguably tainted handling of member's grievance).
Given the limited scope of our review on appeal, we cannot conclude that the board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, marred by legal error, or otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Decision of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board affirmed.