Code of Massachusetts Regulations 456 CMR - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS
I. Purpose and Legal Framework of 456 CMR
456 CMR implements Massachusetts public-sector collective bargaining laws, primarily:
M.G.L. c. 150E (public employee collective bargaining)
M.G.L. c. 23, § 9R (authority of the Department of Labor Relations)
The Department of Labor Relations (DLR) enforces these laws by:
Investigating unfair labor practices
Conducting representation elections
Resolving bargaining impasses
Administering arbitration and mediation
Courts consistently recognize that 456 CMR has the force of law, as long as it is consistent with Chapter 150E.
II. General Provisions (456 CMR 1.00)
Function
This section establishes:
Filing deadlines
Service requirements
Definitions
Procedural fairness rules
Case Law Interpretation
School Committee of Newton v. Labor Relations Commission
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that strict compliance with procedural regulations is required.
Failure to meet filing or service rules under DLR regulations can result in dismissal.
The court emphasized that DLR procedures ensure due process for both unions and employers.
Legal Principle:
Administrative agencies may enforce procedural rules strictly when parties are given clear notice and opportunity to comply.
III. Unfair Labor Practices (456 CMR 2.00)
What This Covers
Unfair labor practices (ULPs) include:
Employer interference with union rights
Refusal to bargain in good faith
Discrimination based on union activity
Union coercion of employees
Burden of Proof
The charging party must establish a prima facie case
The responding party may rebut with legitimate justification
Key Case Law
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor Relations Commission
The SJC ruled that an employer violates Chapter 150E when it makes unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining.
Even well-intentioned changes violate the law if made without bargaining.
City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Commission
The Appeals Court upheld the DLR’s authority to draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.
Anti-union motive may be inferred from timing, statements, and conduct.
Legal Principle:
Intent can be inferred; direct evidence is not required.
IV. Representation Proceedings (456 CMR 3.00)
What This Covers
Certification and decertification of unions
Bargaining unit determinations
Conduct of elections
Bargaining Unit Standards
The DLR considers:
Community of interest
Job duties
Working conditions
Bargaining history
Case Law
Town of Danvers v. Labor Relations Commission
The court upheld the DLR’s broad discretion in determining appropriate bargaining units.
Employers cannot dictate unit composition solely for administrative convenience.
Legal Principle:
The DLR’s expertise in labor relations is entitled to substantial judicial deference.
V. Arbitration and Mediation (456 CMR 4.00)
Role of the DLR
Appoints neutrals
Oversees arbitration processes
Ensures procedural fairness
Judicial Review of Arbitration
Boston v. Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association
The SJC held that arbitration awards are presumptively valid.
Courts may vacate awards only if:
The arbitrator exceeded authority
The award violates public policy
The process lacked fundamental fairness
Legal Principle:
Courts do not reweigh evidence or reinterpret contracts.
VI. Impasse Resolution (456 CMR 5.00)
When Impasse Occurs
An impasse exists when:
Parties bargain in good faith
Further negotiations would be futile
Fact-Finding and Interest Arbitration
Used especially for:
Police
Firefighters
Essential public employees
Case Law
City of Boston v. Labor Relations Commission
The court upheld mandatory interest arbitration for police and fire as constitutional.
The public interest in uninterrupted emergency services justifies limits on strikes.
Legal Principle:
Statutory arbitration schemes do not violate separation of powers when standards guide the arbitrator.
VII. Appeals and Review (456 CMR 6.00)
Judicial Review Standard
Courts review DLR decisions under the “substantial evidence” standard.
Case Law
Southern Worcester County Regional Vocational School District v. Labor Relations Commission
Courts defer to the DLR unless a decision is:
Arbitrary or capricious
Unsupported by substantial evidence
Contrary to law
Legal Principle:
Courts respect agency expertise, especially in labor relations.
VIII. Overall Legal Themes
Strong Deference to DLR Expertise
Strict Enforcement of Procedural Rules
Broad Protection of Collective Bargaining Rights
Limited Judicial Interference
Public Policy Balancing for Essential Services
IX. Practical Impact
For employers:
Must bargain before changing terms and conditions
Must follow DLR procedures precisely
For unions:
Protected against retaliation
Guaranteed fair representation elections
For employees:
Right to organize or refrain
Protection from coercion
RELATED Blog
comments