Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXI Chapter 150C
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150C, § 12 (2026)

Modification or correction of award; grounds; procedure

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 12. (a) Upon application made within thirty days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, the superior court shall modify or correct the award if:—

(1) There was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award;

(2) The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted; or

(3) The award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.

(b) If the application is granted, the court shall modify and correct the award so as to effect its intent and shall confirm the award as so modified and corrected; otherwise, it shall confirm the award as made.

(c) An application to modify or correct an award may be joined in the alternative with an application to vacate the award.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Sch. Comm. of Braintree v. Raymond, 343 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sch. Comm. of Braintree v. Raymond, 343 N.E.2d 145 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to G. L. c. 150C, § 12 (a) (2), the award is to be modified by striking out the provision that the committee violated the contract by unilaterally eliminating the position and the provision for reinstatement to the position.”
Sch. Comm. of West Springfield v. Korbut, 369 N.E.2d 1148 (Mass. 1977). “Of the grounds stated in these sections, the school committee relies on two, namely that the arbitrators’ determination exceeded the scope of their ref *792 erence (G. L. c. 150C, § 12), and that the reinstatement of Korbut exceeded their powers (G.”
Sch. Comm. of Lynnfield v. Trachtman, 417 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “G. L. c. 150C, § 12(h). So ordered. 2 The arbitrator found that although the minutes for the March 16, 1977, meeting did not reflect the committee’s consideration of Trachtman’s position as such, all parties concerned understood, on the basis of prior, informal conversations,…”
Gannon v. Mayor of Revere, 515 N.E.2d 1195 (Mass. 1987). “]) or to modify or correct the award (G. L. c. 150C, § 12 [1986 ed.]). The mayor is at an impasse.”
Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, Am. Fed'n of Teachers, Afl-Cio v. Sch. Comm. of Boston, 240 N.E.3d 223 (Mass. 2024). “" G. L. c. 150C, § 12. A party has thirty days to seek to vacate or modify an arbitration award upon receipt.”
City of Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n., No. 23-P-1493 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 8, 2025). “" G. L. c. 150C, § 12 (a) (3). 6 to § 10, and the judgment of confirmation had been affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Williams I, 477 Mass.”
City of Medford v. Local Union No. 1032, Medford Fire Fighters Union, 32 Mass. L. Rptr. 162 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2014). “G.L.c. 150C, §12. To the present date, the city of Medford has not moved to vacate or modify the arbitration award under either G.”
City of Boston v. AFSCME, Council 93, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 230 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1996). “150C §11(a)(3) or modification of the award pursuant to M.G.L.c. 150C §12(2). Defendant moves for summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment.”
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150C, § 12(2): 1 case
City of Boston v. AFSCME, Council 93, 6 Mass. L. Rptr. 230 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1996). “150C §11(a)(3) or modification of the award pursuant to M.G.L.c. 150C §12(2). Defendant moves for summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment.”
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150C, § 12(h): 1 case
Sch. Comm. of Lynnfield v. Trachtman, 417 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “G. L. c. 150C, § 12(h). So ordered. 2 The arbitrator found that although the minutes for the March 16, 1977, meeting did not reflect the committee’s consideration of Trachtman’s position as such, all parties concerned understood, on the basis of prior, informal conversations,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.