Commissioner of Administration and Finance v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-076-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-12208 COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE vs. COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD & another.[1] Suffolk. January 5, 2017. – May 12, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board. Labor, Unfair labor practice, Duty to bargain. Commonwealth, Financial matters, Collective bargaining. Appeal from a decision of the Division of Labor Relations. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Robert L. Quinan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff. Jane Gabriel for the defendant. Alan H. Shapiro (John M. Becker also present) for the intervener. Mathew D. Jones, for Massachusetts Teachers Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LOWY, J. In June, 2010, near the height of the global economic downturn that became known as the Great Recession, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (Secretary) submitted to the Legislature a request for an appropriation to fund collective bargaining agreements between the Commonwealth and two public employee unions reached more than thirteen months earlier. In the letter containing the request, the Secretary informed the Legislature that several similar requests for salary increases had been rejected by the Legislature; that attempts to renegotiate the agreements with the unions had failed; and that approval of the request would require renegotiating several other collective bargaining agreements that the Legislature had already approved. The unions both filed a charge of prohibited practice with the Department of Labor Relations (department), arguing, in essence, that the letter was a violation of the Commonwealth’s purported duty to support an appropriation’s request pursuant to G. L. c. 150E, § 7 (b), and also that the letter constituted a failure to bargain in good faith, in violation of G. L. c. 150E, § 10 (a) (5). In January, 2014, a hearing officer with the department agreed with the unions and found that the Commonwealth had violated its § 7 (b) duty and had committed a prohibited practice under § 10 (a) (5) by failing to bargain in good faith. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (board)[2] affirmed, the Commonwealth appealed from the decision, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We reverse the board’s decision and conclude that the Secretary’s inclusion of information about the anticipated fiscal effects of a legislative decision to fund […]
Categories: News Tags: 1007617, Administration, Board, Commissioner, Commonwealth, employment, Finance, Lawyers, Relations, Weekly
Realty Finance Holdings, LLC v. KS Shiraz Manager, LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-110-14)
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 13-P-252 Appeals Court REALTY FINANCE HOLDINGS, LLC[1] vs. KS SHIRAZ MANAGER, LLC, & others.[2] No. 13-P-252. Suffolk. January 9, 2014. – September 5, 2014. Present: Katzmann, Fecteau, & Milkey, JJ. Contract, What constitutes, Condition precedent, Choice of law clause, Damages. Evidence, Parol evidence. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment. Damages, Breach of contract. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 21, 2008. The case was heard by Charles T. Spurlock, J., on a motion for summary judgment; a hearing on the assessment of damages was had before Carol S. Ball, J., and entry of final judgment was ordered by her. Jeffrey P. Allen (Maria Galvagna Mesinger with him) for the defendants. Paul S. Samson for the plaintiff. KATZMANN, J. In this appeal, the parties dispute whether two thirty-eight page limited liability company agreements, negotiated and drafted with the assistance of counsel and each containing an integration clause, should be enforced as written. A Superior Court judge entered summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the agreements were fully integrated contracts and that the parol evidence rule prohibited consideration of the parties’ negotiations to show that the agreements were subject to contingencies. A final judgment then entered awarding damages to the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendants argue that it was always understood that the agreements, though fully executed, were not to take effect until certain financing and property acquisitions were in place and that electronic mail message (e-mail) exchanges between the parties raise genuine issues of material fact whether integration was intended. The defendants further maintain that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages under the terms of the agreements. We affirm. 1. Facts. We take the undisputed facts from the judge’s February 1, 2010, “Memorandum and Order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability” and from the parties’ statement of undisputed facts. We also add material from the record for purposes of background and discussion, as noted. During the relevant events of this case, the plaintiff was a Delaware limited liability company involved in real estate specialty finance.[3] The defendants are related Massachusetts entities involved in real estate acquisition and management. Kambiz Shahbazi is the principal of KS GS Manager, LLC; KS GS Equity Partners, LLC; KS Shiraz Manager, LLC; and KS Shiraz Equity Patners, LLC, the entities that […]
Gov. Patrick Won’t Support Latest Transportation Finance Plan
By: Bret Silverberg Gov. Deval Patrick said he would not support a new transportation finance plan that would create $ 500 million in new taxes.
Are Tolls a Good Way to Finance Roads?
Drivers who live in the towns and cities along the Massachusetts Turnpike west of Route 128 are used to paying tolls. However, in 2009 the state wrote into a law a deadline for the tolls along Interstate 90 to be taken down once the state’s highway debt is paid off, according to the Boston Business Journal Wednesday. The site reports that date is Jan. 1, 2017 as of now. The state does plan to get rid of the tollbooths as currently constituted in one form by installing a high-speed all-electronic tolling system that bills drivers as they zip through. This change will take effect as early as next year on the Tobin Bridge. BBJ reports that top state Department of Transportation official Richard Davey wants to roll the MassPike tolls west of Route 128 in with this plan, thus canceling the previous plan to get rid of tolling along this section of the Pike altogether. Do you think tolling is a good way to continue to finance the state’s infrastructure needs, or would it be best for transportation officials to take the tolls down and find another way? Leave your opinion in the comments. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch