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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more