Posts tagged "1110317"

Malden Police Patrolman’s Association v. City of Malden (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-103-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-494                                        Appeals Court   MALDEN POLICE PATROLMAN’S ASSOCIATION  vs.  CITY OF MALDEN.     No. 16-P-494.   Middlesex.     February 7, 2017. – August 11, 2017.   Present:  Trainor, Blake, & Shin, JJ.     Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Summary judgment.  Superior Court.  Rules of the Superior Court.  Administrative Law, Primary jurisdiction, Exhaustion of remedies.  Unjust Enrichment.  Contract, Collective bargaining contract, Unjust enrichment, Promissory estoppel.  Public Employment, Collective bargaining.  Police, Collective bargaining. Massachusetts Wage Act.  Civil Service, Collective bargaining, Municipal finance.  Municipal Corporations, Collective bargaining, Municipal finance.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 21, 2015.   The case was heard by Bruce R. Henry, J., on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.     Christopher G. Fallon for the plaintiff. Albert R. Mason for the defendant.     BLAKE, J.  The plaintiff, Malden Police Patrolman’s Association (union), is a labor organization comprised of approximately seventy-nine police officers employed by the defendant, the city of Malden (city).  The union and the city were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering three fiscal years from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013.  The CBA set forth the provisions governing, among other matters, paid detail work performed by the officers.[1]  During the summer of 2014, the union notified the city that it was in arrears on the payment of compensation to officers for detail work, requested a written explanation for the nonpayment, and demanded the outstanding detail pay.  The city took the position that, because the officers earned the detail pay for work performed for third parties, the city was exempt from the provisions of the Massachusetts wage and hour laws, requiring timely payment of earned wages. On January 21, 2015, the union filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the city,[2] alleging that the city owed the officers approximately $ 410,000 in compensation for the performance of past detail work.[3]  The complaint requested relief under theories of breach of contract (count I), breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count II), promissory estoppel (count III), unjust enrichment (count IV), and violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, § 148 (Wage Act) (count V).  The union then filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, 365 Mass. 824 (1974).  The city moved to dismiss the union’s complaint or, in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 11, 2017 at 7:55 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,