On Feb. 1, a hearing officer for the state’s Department of Labor Relations ruled that the town of Harvard violated a section of state law three years ago. The violation occurred when the town promoted a Department of Public Works employee to a new position and set his starting pay to step 2 on the pay scale for that position instead of step 1. That alone was not illegal, but the town failed to notify the union that it was going to take that action, denying the union the opportunity to become involved in the decision.
In 2021, the DPW union filed a charge with the Department of Labor Relations alleging that the town had violated MGL Chapter 150E, Section 10(a)(5), which prohibits an employer from refusing to “bargain collectively in good faith” with the union representative.
The charge included two counts, both related to an employee starting a new position at a step higher than step 1. According to the hearing officer, from at least 2011 to 2021, the town always hired new employees at step 1 on the wage schedule for the position. Also during that time, the officer said that employees who were promoted were always placed at the lowest step in the new position that offered a pay increase.
But in March, 2021, the town hired a new employee for the position of truck driver/laborer at step 3. According to the hearing officer, Town Administrator Tim Bragan made that decision because the applicant had 12 years of relevant experience and multiple licenses. In addition, the applicant told Bragan he would not accept the position at step 1 or 2, and the town was having difficulty finding drivers.
Also in March of that year, an existing DPW truck driver/laborer was promoted to the position of mechanic/equipment operator starting at step 2 on the pay scale. The hearing officer said the employee would have received a raise even at step 1, but Bragan placed him higher because he had experience as a mechanic. In both cases, the officer noted that this was the first time that Bragan had not started a new or promoted employee at the minimum step.
The officer dismissed the first charge, since the new employee was not an existing member of the collective bargaining unit at the time the town offered him the position. But the town was found guilty of the second charge because it related to the promotion of an existing bargaining unit member. The officer said the town had already repeatedly denied other DPW employees’ requests to start at a higher step upon promotion. The town argued that the mechanic was more qualified than the other employees it had promoted, and that hiring was difficult at the time. But the fact remained that it did not give the union notice of the decision at the time of the promotion.
The union and the hearing officer agreed that the remedy should not involve restoring the mechanic to step 1, since that would unfairly penalize him. But the union argued that other members of the collective bargaining unit who received promotions should be bumped up a step to “make them whole.” The officer did not agree because the other employees had not lost any wages as a result of the town’s decision regarding the mechanic’s wages.
There is no fine associated with the violation. The town was ordered to “cease and desist” from changing the placement of promoted bargaining unit members on the pay scale without bargaining “in good faith” with the union. It was also ordered to post a notice to employees that outlined the violation and included a statement promising not to engage in this practice again. The notice was posted at the DPW Feb. 2.
