Management Rights - AELE's Home Page

Assignment 5-2
Despite the fact that many collective bargaining agreements purport to
restrict a chief's ability to make assignments, such clauses may not be
enforceable. For example, a clause which purports to require absolute shift
assignments by seniority might be voidable if it left no leeway for the chief
to make certain shift assignments for legitimate reasons. A similar result
would apply where a contract clause leaves no room for a chief to use
his/her judgment or discretion in making specialist assignments. In any
event, a municipality is free to refuse to include overly restrictive provisions
in future contracts. In fact, a union may commit a prohibited (unfair labor)
practice if it insists to the point of impasse on a proposal to deprive the
chief of the ability to make assignments.
In a 1983 case arising from the Burlington Police Department, the SJC
ruled that the decision to assign prosecutorial duties, subject only to the
authority of the attorney general and district attorney, is an exclusive
managerial prerogative and is not a proper subject for collective
bargaining. 4
Although the procedures for resolving contractual impasses have changed
since the Appeals Court's 1980 decision involving arbitration with the
Taunton Police Department, the court's rationale is still applicable. 5 The
court ruled that the last best offer arbitration panel acted beyond the
scope of its authority when it included in its award articles which: (1) set
forth a procedure to be followed by the city when involuntarily transferring
a police officer from one shift to another; (2) included an article prohibiting
rotation of shifts; and (3) contained an article providing that all
assignments on each shift be filled by regular officers.
The court stated that while the city could agree to these provisions (as it
had in a previous agreement), it was not required to do so. It was free to
adopt the position at arbitration that such provisions place overly
inflexible or cumbersome restrictions upon the police chief's ability to
assign his officers to their duties.
When a city or town is simply required to
bargain collectively concerning a subject, the
ultimate decision whether to accept a particular
proposal of a union remains with the city or
town. 6
The court noted that there is a distinction between mandatory subjects of
bargaining in c. 150E, §6 and those matters which are within the scope of
arbitration as provided in Chapter 730 of the Acts of 1977, as amended.
The latter contains no reference to "standards of productivity and
performance" and specifies that arbitration in police matters shall not
include matters of inherent managerial policy.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts