Wachusett Regional District School Committee v. Wachusett Regional Teachers Ass'n
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Taunton Municipal Light Plant Commissioon v. Paul L. Geiringer & Assocs. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1983)
- Sch. Comm, New Bedford v. New Bedford Educators (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
- Massachusetts Board of Higher Education v. Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n (Massachusetts Superior Court 2005)
- City of Lynn v. Council 93, American Federation of State, Local 193 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001)
- City of Everett v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Locals 633 & 634 (Massachusetts Superior Court 1995)
- Boston v. BOSTON POLICE PATROLMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC. (Mass. 1989)
- School Committee of Watertown v. Watertown Teachers Ass'n (Mass. 1986)
- School Committee v. Needham Education Ass'n (Mass. 1986)
- Trinque v. Mount Wachusett Community College Faculty Ass'n (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)
- Blackstone-Millville Regional School District v. Maroney (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)
- City of Lawrence v. Falzarano (Mass. 1980)
- School Committee of Burlington v. Burlington Educators Ass'n (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
- Triton Regional District School Committee v. Triton Teachers Ass'n (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It was error to enjoin either arbitration proceeding. The arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement define a "grievance” to include not only "wages, hours, and other conditions of employment” (see School Comm. of Braintree v. Raymond, 369 Mass. 686, 690-691 [1976]) but also any "violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of the provisions of this agreement.” Both grievants allege violations of the evaluation provisions of the agreement prior to the committee’s making its decisions not to reappoint the grievants. See School Comm. of Danvers v. Tyman, 372 Mass. 106, 114 (1977); Dennis-Yarmouth Regional Sch. Comm. v. Dennis Teachers Assn., 372 Mass. 116, 117, 120 (1977); School Comm. of W. Bridgewater v. West Bridgewater Teachers’ Assn. 372 Mass. 121, 122-123, 124-125 (1977); School Comm. of W. Springfield v. Korbut, 373 Mass. 788, 795-796 (1977). One of the grievants alleges a violation of the provision of the agreement that "[n]o teacher will be removed from the payroll as a result of... changes” effected by the committee’s introduction of new programs of instruction. Under arbitration provisions such as those already quoted, it is for the arbitrators, not a court, to find the facts, construe the provisions of the agreement, determine whether those provisions have been violated, and determine whether any violations they may find constitute grievances within the meaning of the arbitration provisions of the agreement. School Comm. of Hanover v. Curry, 369 Mass. 683, 685 (1976). School Comm. of Danvers v. Tyman, 372 Mass. at 115. Dennis-Yarmouth Regional Sch. Comm. v. Dennis Teachers Assn., 372 Mass. at 119 n.4, 120. School Comm. of W. Springfield v. Korbut, 373 Mass. at 793. School Comm. of Leominster v. Gallagher, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 195, 197 (1976). If violations and grievances are found, the arbitrators have broad discretion in fashioning appropriate remedies. See School Comm. of Braintree v. Raymond, 369 Mass. at 691; School Comm. of Danvers v. Tyman, 372 Mass. at 114; School Comm. of W. Bridgewater v. West Bridgewater Teachers’ Assn., 372 Mass. at 125-126; Bradley v. School Comm. of Boston, 373 Mass. 53, 59-60 (1977); School Comm. of
So ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.