Management Rights - AELE's Home Page

Benefits, Compensation and Leaves 16-9
The uncontroverted evidence in this case established that regardless of
how officers got their vests, they did not always wear them. Further, the
officers who testified never wore their vests, without consequence, prior to
the Chief's memorandum. Therefore, the memorandum's requirement that
all officers wear their vests at all times constituted a unilateral change in
the established practice. The requirement to use safety equipment such as
bullet-resistant vests is a mandatory subject of bargaining. 61 Therefore,
absent an affirmative defense, the Chief's unilateral change in a
mandatory subject of bargaining is a violation of the Law. 62
The Town defended its action by relying on the language of the parties'
collective bargaining agreement, and the LRC considered whether the
Union waived its right to bargain about the vesting requirement by
agreeing to that language. The relevant question therefore was whether
the Union knowingly and unequivocally waived its bargaining rights over
the requirement that all officers wear the vests at all times. A contract
waiver requires evidence that the parties consciously explored and
knowingly yielded the right to bargain further about a matter during the
life of an agreement. 63 A waiver of the statutory right to bargain over a
particular subject cannot be inferred lightly. Rather, it must be "shown
clearly, unmistakably, and unequivocally." 64 The contract language on
which the Town relied and the parties' bargaining history established that
there was no waiver in this case.
There was no evidence that either party contemplated that all officers
would receive free vests pursuant to the state grant program at the time
the provision was negotiated. Evidence of bargaining history establishes
that the Union sought to have the Town pay for vests for officers who
wanted them, and the Town wanted the officers to wear the vests if the
Town was going to pay for them. Furthermore, the evidence established
that the Town encouraged the officers to obtain the free vests, and officers
expressed concern and were reassured that there would be no "strings
attached" if they obtained the vests pursuant to the state grant program.
Therefore, the Commission ruled that the Town did not meet its burden of
establishing that the Union waived its right to bargain over the mandatory
use of vests by all officers.
§ 10 HEALTH INSURANCE
The general framework surrounding the issues raised in health insurance
cases is well-settled. A public employer violates the Law when it
unilaterally alters an existing condition of employment or implements a
new condition of employment involving a mandatory subject of bargaining
without providing to the exclusive representative of its employees prior
notice and an opportunity to bargain. 65 The terms and costs of health
Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee