Procedural History: Public employees' union filed charge with Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board), alleging that the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (A & F) had repudiated a memorandum of understanding by inappropriately using funds that had been set aside for costs associated with mediation and dispute resolution to pay salaries of existing OER employees. OER is an office that administers and negotiates collective bargaining agreement for the Commonwealth's executive branch agency” and helps resolve union grievances.
The Board issued an order determining that A & F had repudiated the memorandum and A & F appealed arguing that the union's claim was not filed within the six-month statute of limitations period because upon the union's receipt of A & F's October 3, 2002 letter, it obtained knowledge that A & F had begun spending the funds appropriated for compliance with the terms of the memorandum but did not file a charge until May 6, 2003, seven months later. The six month period begins to run when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged violation. The union argued that A & F's appeal was not filed in accordance with G.L. c. 150Em s11 because A & F filed a notice of appeal with the Board rather than petitioning for judicial review directly to the Appeals court.
Issue #1: Whether A & F's appeal should be dismissed because if failed to comply with the filing requirements for judicial review pursuant to G.L. c. 150E, s11?
No. The Legislature did not provide specific procedures in s11, knowing that the Appeals Court had detailed appellate procedural requirements in place in the form of the rules that already existed. The court concluded that the Legislature intended to leave procedural details, such as filing requirements, to the existing Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition, A & F properly filed a notice of appeal in accordance with the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 3(a), which states that “[a]n appeal permitted by law from a lower court shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the lower court within the time allowed by Rule 4.” Therefore, A & F proceeded with its appeal in the correct manner; by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days.
Issue #2: Whether the union's charge of repudiation of the memorandum by A & F was barred due to the union's failure to file within the six-month statute of limitations period?
Yes. The court found that the board had erred when it found that the union's claim was not time barred by the six-month limitations period because October 3, 2002 served as the point in time where the union knew or should have known of the alleged violation. The union did not receive any additional information relative to A & F's alleged violations following that date. The court went on to say that while the union may have received a clearer understanding of A & F's alleged repudiation on the memorandum after October 3, 2002, October 3, 2002 triggered the running of the limitations period because that was the point at which the union possessed facts suggesting injury by A & F. The order of the board was reversed. (MS)
