Skip to main content

Communications Between Union Member and Union Not Privileged in Civil Suit


Chadwick v. Duxbury Public Schools - Massachusetts Supreme Court


Facts:  From 2006 until 2015, Nancy Chadwick ("Chadwick") was employed as a teacher at Duxbury High School.  In 1998, Chadwick was diagnosed with PTSD but was able to manage the symptoms until 2009.  After 2009, she experienced issues related to her PTSD which she claimed were caused by bullying and harassment from her supervisor.  Chadwick had her attorney notify the school that she requested an accommodation in the form of a replacement supervisor but the school did not change supervisors.  Throughout 2013 and 2014, Chadwick and the school engaged in a series of "interactions" which Chadwick claimed involved discrimination and retaliation against her.  After being placed in a disciplinary action program in mid 2014 that could result in her termination, Chadwick brought a discrimination suit.

Duxbury sent discovery requests to Chadwick that asked for certain documentation in relation to the suit. Chadwick objected to the discovery request on the grounds that a "union member-union" privilege existed.  The Superior Court disagreed and entered an order compelling Chadwick fully respond.  Chadwick subsequently appealed the Superior Court's ruling.

Holding:  The Massachusetts Supreme Court noted that this was an issue of first impression.  Further, the Court pointed out that Chadwick acknowledged that a union member-union privilege had never been recognized in the state before.  However, Chadwick argued that a statute that established collective bargaining rights of public employees should be interpreted to recognize a union member-union privilege (and that such a privilege would bar an employer's access to the requested information sought via discovery).

The Court looked to see whether there was unspoken legislative intent to create a union member-union privilege.   Under G.L.c 150E, it is a prohibited practice for a public employer to "(1) interfere, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of any right guaranteed under the chapter; or (2) dominate, interfere, or assist in the formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization."  Under the language of the statute, the Court held its purpose was to protect the right of public employees to organize and to protect unions and their members from employer intrusion or control.  Accordingly, a union member-union privilege existed in regard to labor disputes, but not in civil actions such as the one filed by Chadwick.

Judgment:  The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that a union member-union privilege existed in labor disputes, but not in regard to documents requested by an employer in a civil suit filed by a former employee.

The Takeaway:  This was an interesting case and one that I wanted to highlight, in part because of it being an issue of first impression in Massachusetts.  I think the Court explained its reasoning well in so much that the statutory definition (or any legislative intent) failed to establish that an employee can use a union member-union privilege to withhold documents in a civil suit.  As the Court pointed out, based upon the express language of the statute, this privilege would likely be successful in a labor dispute.  However, with there being no basis in the statute upon which Chadwick could base her union member-union privilege claim, this is a case where the Court applied the law, analyzed the statute, and reached the right conclusion.  With this ruling from the Court, the only real option that employees like Chadwick could have (in regard to attempting to utilize this privilege successfully in future civil suits) is to seek to have the statute amended.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Hines

 Date:  October 4, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/ChadwickDuxbury100416.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more