Section 43. The salary of no teacher employed with professional teacher status in any city or town except Boston shall be reduced without his consent except by a general salary revision affecting equally all teachers of the same salary grade in the town or except in connection with a reduction in status from full-time to part-time pursuant to a reduction in force resulting from declining enrollments or other budgetary reasons or pursuant to reorganizations for academic or budgetary reasons. Nothing in this section or in any other section of this chapter shall be construed to prevent a school district from entering into an individual annuity contract for such employee or from reducing the salary or compensation of such employee pursuant to such agreement for the purpose of such purchase as authorized by section thirty-seven B.
Glennon v. Sch. Comm. of Boston, 378 N.E.2d 1372 (Mass. 1978). · cites it 6ד[G. L. c. 71, § 43] or if he has been transferred without his consent to a position wherein he no longer serves at discretion,” Glennon could not be considered demoted thereunder because (1) G.”
Coco v. Sch. Comm. of Boylston, 466 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 9דFirst, he found that the reduction in the plaintiff’s pay to reflect the decrease in his hours effected a “reduction” of “salary” under G. L. c. 71, § 43, in violation of that section’s provision which permits such reductions only when they are part of a “general salary revision…”
Setterlund v. Groton-Dunstable Reg'l Sch. Comm., 415 N.E.2d 214 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 6ד71, § 42, and granting summary judgment for the school committee (the committee) on count 2 of the complaint, in which the plaintiff sought a declaration that his salary had been reduced in violation of G. L. c. 71, § 43. We hold *329 that summary judgment was correctly granted…”
Paquette v. City of Fall River, 179 N.E. 588 (Mass. 1932). · cites it 5דThey were secured against reduction in salary except under a general salary revision by G. L. c. 71, § 43. They were also protected against summary dismissal by G.”
Hallett v. Contributory Ret. Appeal Bd., 725 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 2דof Boylston, supra at 224, and cases cited, where the meaning of the word “salary” in G. L. c. 71, § 43, was at issue, we said, “[t]here is considerable authority from other jurisdictions, and some guidance from Massachusetts precedent, for interpreting the term ‘salary’ to…”
Turner v. Sch. Comm., 670 N.E.2d 202 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 4ד628 (1984)(teacher dismissed for budgetary reasons brought action against school committee under G. L. c. 71, § 43 A), or by seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to G.”
Dimlich v. Sch. Comm. of Andover, 184 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 1962). · cites it 3ד269) 1 since no written charges had been furnished, no notice given or hearing conducted; and that his reduction in salary from $6,700 to $6,300 was in violation of G. L. c. 71, § 43. 2 A decree was entered in which it was adjudged that the plaintiff “is entitled to be restored…”
Bartlett v. Greyhound Real Est. Fin. Co., 669 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996). “65, § 26 (court’s acceptance of property appraisal “shall be final except that any party aggrieved by such appraisal shall have an appeal on matters of law”); G.”
Kaplan v. Sch. Comm. of Melrose, 294 N.E.2d 209 (Mass. 1973). · cites it 2ד” However, the plaintiff contends that, although the school committee had the power to abolish *337 her position without giving her a hearing, they were precluded by G. L. c. 71, § 43, from reducing her salary.”
Sch. Comm. of Lynnfield v. Trachtman, 417 N.E.2d 459 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2ד150E, § 6, and G. L. c. 71, § 43, “a tenured teacher may have his salary reduced in only two situations: (1) if, as here, he is subject to a collective bargáining agreement, it may be reduced in accordance with the agreement; (2) if he is not subject to a collective bargaining…”
Nutter v. Sch. Comm. of Lowell, 359 N.E.2d 962 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977). “who has been lawfully dismissed shall receive compensation for services rendered thereafter.”
Sch. Comm. of Hanover v. Curry, 325 N.E.2d 282 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975). “In view of our disposition of this case, we need not deal with the school committee’s related contention under G. L. c. 71, § 43. 7 General Laws c. 149, §§ 178G-178N, has now been repealed and replaced by a new public employees’ collective bargaining statute, G.”
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.