Management Rights - AELE's Home Page

Minimum Staffing 15-3
that “a minimum-staffing requirement in a fire department may involve
public safety considerations,” because “such a requirement has a direct
effect on the number of people that will be employed and is similar to a job
security clause . .” 15
The Court held, however, that although minimum staffing provisions were
managerial rights that could be bargained for, they were not enforceable in
the second year of the agreement without funding appropriated by the
town because such a provision would interfere with a town’s exclusive
managerial prerogative to annually determine staff levels and appropriate
funding. 16 Similarly, in Saugus v. Newbury, 17 the Appeals Court held that
job security clauses are not enforceable for more than one fiscal year, and
that a collective bargaining provision that attempts to control a public
employer’s ability to determine staffing levels beyond one year intrudes
upon an exclusive managerial prerogative. 18 In other words, a minimum
staffing provision that is in the nature of a job security provision can be
enforced under a collective bargaining agreement during a fiscal year in
which funding is appropriated.
The 2005 case of Local 2071, International Association of Firefighters v.
Town of Bellingham arose out of a labor-management dispute between the
Town of Bellingham and a local firefighters union which is the
representative of firefighters employed by the Town. 19 The dispute was
committed to the Joint Labor-Management Commitee (“JLMC”) pursuant
to St. 1987, c. 589, § 4A. The JLMC in turn referred the dispute to a
panel of arbitrators. The arbitrators made an award consisting of a 3%
annual wage increase in favor of the employees and the imposition of a
twenty-four hour shift. The Town did not challenge the award of a wage
increase, but disputed the validity of the order for the twenty-four hour
shift, and has filed a motion in opposition.
The Town maintained that the setting of shift schedules is a nonarbitrable
issue as it is a “core management right.”
The fundamental question before the court was whether the matter of a
twenty-four hour work shift as ordered by the arbitrators is equivalent to
the assignment of firefighters, a non-arbitrable subject, or is subject to
any other explicit exemption under the JMLC law. From the context of the
JLMC statute which excludes assignments and transfers of employees
from arbitration, the Superior Court Judge noted that it is evident that the
Legislature sought to exempt from arbitration any issue directly related to
the type of work performed by employees, but not work hours. Thus,
based upon the record before the court, the Judge ruled that the issue
was arbitrable, and that there is support in the record for the decision by
the arbitrators.
Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee