Section 5. The exclusive representative shall have the right to act for and negotiate agreements covering all employees in the unit and shall be responsible for representing the interests of all such employees without discrimination and without regard to employee organization membership.
The exclusive representative may require a non-member to pay for the reasonable costs and fees, including arbitrator fees and related attorney fees, for grieving or arbitrating a matter arising under an agreement negotiated pursuant to this section and brought at the non-member's request. The exclusive representative may require a non-member to pay any anticipated proportional costs and fees prior to a grievance or arbitration hearing. Failure to pay costs and fees shall relieve the exclusive representative of further responsibility to the non-member regarding the matter.
An exclusive representative's duty of fair representation to a public employee who is in the bargaining unit shall be limited to the negotiation and enforcement of the terms of agreements with the public employer. The laws of the commonwealth shall not prohibit an employee organization from providing only to its members legal, economic or job-related services or benefits outside of the collective bargaining agreement.
An employee may present a grievance to his employer and have such grievance heard without intervention by the exclusive representative of the employee organization representing said employee, provided that the exclusive representative is afforded the opportunity to be present at such conferences and that any adjustment made shall not be inconsistent with the terms of an agreement then in effect between the employer and the exclusive representative.
Notes of Decisions
Branch v. Commonwealth Emp. Relations Bd., 120 N.E.3d 1163 (Mass. 2019).
· cites it 4× “" Finally, they challenged the constitutionality of the exclusive representation provisions of G. L. c. 150E, § 5, for essentially the **814 same reasons.”
D'Agostino v. Baker, 812 F.3d 240 (1st Cir. 2016).
“See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E, § 5. This limitation, they say, creates a fiduciary obligation implying a closer and constitutionally more significant association than that resulting solely from a union’s being an exclusive agent.”
Pattison v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 565 N.E.2d 801 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The Commission drew an inference of cause and effect and held that Pattison had carried her burden of demonstrating that the union was in breach of its DFR, for it is a discriminatory and illegal act for a union to fail to give equal representation in grievance and other matters…”
Best v. Rome, 858 F. Supp. 271 (D. Mass. 1994).
“Mass.Gen.L. ch. 150E, § 5. 7 . At least one state court has noted that the states courts generally follow federal precedent when interpreting the duty of fair representation: [t]he Massachusetts courts have recognized that similar considerations and principles apply in labor…”
Johnston v. Sch. Comm. of Watertown, 533 N.E.2d 1310 (Mass. 1989).
“” See G. L. c. 150E, § 5. This case falls under the general rule that failure to pursue contractual grievance procedures bars suit against the employer.”
Keane v. City Auditor of Boston, 402 N.E.2d 495 (Mass. 1980).
“, G. L. c. 150E, § 5. Beyond our concern with multiplication of entities, “an employer’s unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation .”
Peltz-Steele v. Umass Fac. Fed'n, 60 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023).
“" Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 150E, § 5. He points as well to Section 4 of Chapter 150E, which provides that "[p]ublic employers may recognize an employee organization designated by the majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit as the exclusive representative of all…”
Leahy v. Local 1526, Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees, 504 N.E.2d 602 (Mass. 1987).
“The union, and especially the commission as amicus curiae, argue vigorously that the duty of fair representation in Massachusetts arises from G. L. c. 150E, §§ 5 and 10 (b) (1), and did not originate as a judicial doctrine as under the Federal statute.”
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.