Management Rights - AELE's Home Page

CHAPTER 11 - LIGHT DUTY
A department may require injured police or fire employees to perform
modified or light duty rather than allowing such individuals to remain out
of work with pay on either sick or injured on duty status.
Prior to 1985, it was commonly assumed that public safety employees
injured in the line of duty were entitled to leave without loss of pay until
their condition improved to the point where they were able to perform each
and every aspect of their job to which they might be assigned. 1 The
Supreme Judicial Court, in a 1985 decision involving the Newton Police
Department, ruled that an injured police officer could be required to
return to work and perform light duty, especially where such duties were
within the job description of a police officer and/or were duties to which
police officers might otherwise be assigned. In the Newton case, the court
noted that the city imposed the requirement after reaching impasse
following good faith negotiations with the union. In an unpublished 2002
SJC decision involving the Westfield Police Department, the court pointed
out that nothing in the Newton case prohibits a city or town from offering
police officers greater benefits than those set forth in §111F. 2
The Labor Relations Commission has ruled that a municipal employer is
required to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain where it intends
to modify the criteria for determining eligibility for § 111F injury leave
benefits. 3 The Commission recognizes that an employer does not violate §
111F by requiring an injured employee to resume work in a limited
capacity; however, it has ruled that the municipal employer's imposition of
a newly created 111F eligibility criteria without first exhausting its
bargaining obligations violated § 10(a)(5) of Chapter 150E.
PRACTICE POINTERS
Even though some Hearing Officers have not focused on it, the Commission
has noted the distinction between the employer's managerial prerogative to
create a light duty position and its obligation to bargain over the impact of
that newly created position on mandatory subjects of bargaining. 4 There
is also a distinction between criteria for § 111F eligibility and criteria for
light duty assignment. Since 111F provides for leave without loss of pay,
employees required to perform light duty are on the payroll and, by
definition, are not receiving 111F benefits (i.e., paid leave). Therefore, the
reference by certain Hearing Officers to a bargaining obligation for 111F
eligibility criteria is technically not applicable to a light duty situation,
unless they mean that partially disabled employees are ineligible for 111F
Commonwealth of Massachusetts