Union Bargains in Bad Faith by Seeking Town Meeting Appropriation

Negotiations for collective bargaining agreements, just as with any negotiation, are a matter of compromise. Rarely do unions or municipalities get everything they want. Generally, though, when agreement is reached, the parties act in good faith and accept the compromise and the agreement. 

One town’s union did not accept this outcome. The union in bargaining with the town’s school committee had sought a one-time payment to instructional assistants in its proposals, but the school committee did not agree to the proposal and the payment was not incorporated into the final agreement, which was presented to and ratified by the union’s membership. Just three weeks after the union ratified the agreement, the union participated in drafting, and lobbied for, a Town Meeting warrant article to provide funding for the payment. The motion under the article passed. The union then sent a letter to the school committee “look[ing] forward to ensuring that the will of the community is executed . . ..” The school committee responded that the approved motion was an unlawful encroachment on its exclusive bargaining rights and refused to reopen the agreement. It also filed a charge of a prohibited labor practice against the union with the Department of Labor Relations which ultimately came before the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board for consideration on a stipulated factual record.  

The Board agreed with the town that the union had violated its duty to bargain in good faith in pursuing a payment for its members that bypassed the school committee. The Appeals Court agreed that the union had engaged in two versions of bad faith bargaining and affirmed. The union engaged in “fait accompli” bargaining and “double-cross” bargaining. Fait accompli bargaining was characterized by the union obtaining Town Meeting approval for the stipend and presenting it to the school committee as a basis for amending the agreement. Double-cross bargaining was found by the union accepting a collective bargaining agreement that did not include the stipend but then seeking to force the school committee to provide the benefit.  

While the Appeals Court acknowledged that there is no blanket prohibition against a union supporting some Town Meeting action that benefits its members, for example supporting the funding for a collective bargaining agreement reached between a town and the union, the union cannot use Town Meeting to accomplish a result that it was unable to secure at the bargaining table. The case is Andover Education Ass’n v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board.