Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: fscpd907

Hudson - Both the state Supreme Judicial Court and the Labor Relations Commission have now said the rights of Jose Chaves, who was fired by the Police Department eight years ago, were violated by the town.

Chaves, who was a Hudson police officer at the time, was fired in the fall of 1999 after the Police Department accused him of making a disparaging remark to a superior.

Last week the state's highest court handed down its ruling. The state labor commission originally dismissed Chaves' case but then reversed itself 2004.

In 1999, Chaves was "the subject of an internal investigation and requested a representative from the New England Police Benevolent Association, Local 14, to go with him to the interview.

The union representative who arrived for the interview, Marc Terry, was also the union's legal counsel at the time, according to the decision.

Chaves's supervisor, Sgt. Michael Burks, "did not permit Terry to accompany Chaves into the interview room on the ground that Terry was an attorney," according to the decision by the court.

" Basically an employee requested a lawyer serve as his union representative," said Peter J. Perroni, the union's attorney. "The town said you couldn't have a lawyer serve as a union representative."

The union filed a complaint with the Labor Relations Commission. Initially, the commission dismissed the case.

But after reconsideration, the commission changed its decision, saying the town violated Chaves' rights by not allowing a representative to attend "an investigation that Chaves could have reasonably believed would lead to discipline," states the decision.

The town appealed the commission's findings, but on Thursday, the court upheld the commission.

"Obviously we're very pleased with it," said Perroni. "It means that the decision by the Labor Relations Commission stands."

Cynthia A. Spahl, chief counsel for the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, could not comment on the case because she said it is against policy. Calls made to Kimberly A. Rozak, the attorney for the town of Hudson, were not returned. Chaves could not be reached for comment.

Last week's decision is based on a Supreme Court ruling in 1975 - National Labor Relations Board vs. J. Weingarten Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court sided with the National Labor Relations Board.

The court stated if an employer denies an employee a union representative "at an investigatory interview which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action (it is) ... an unfair labor practice."

Thursday's decision states there is no case that directly discusses whether or not a union representative can also be an attorney. "It's kind of an open-ended question around the nation," said Perroni.

---

Posted by: dcs2244

I wonder...if the union rep had coincidentally been a physicians assistant, auto mechanic or CPA instead of a lawyer...would the town have denied the rep access?

A union rep is a union rep, regardless of his training/educational background...another waste of the taxpayers money and every bodies time by a bunch of know-nothings. I hope that kid sues their butts off and they have to change the name of the town to "Chaves".

It must be real fun to work in Hudson. One of my academy instructors left his department to be the chief there...he lasted about 6 months and returned to his original department (his choice...not theirs).

</IMG>

---

Posted by: bbelichick

Gottal love managers...I guess never heard of Weingarten, eh?

They have now.

---

Posted by: Macop

One up for the road dawgs!!

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser