Commonwealth Employment Relations Board v. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, AFT

A Massachusetts law (the act) prevented unions from engaging in, encouraging, condoning, or inducing any strike or work stoppage. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (the board) was charged with enforcing the act and adjudicating disputes. The act directed the board to take certain actions to prevent or correct violations, and it mandated that the board, upon finding that a violation had occurred or will occur, immediately set requirements that must be complied with. One such requirement was instituting appropriate court proceedings. In 2006 the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, AFT (the union) (defendant) was in the midst of collective bargaining with the Boston School Committee (the committee) (plaintiff). The union announced that it would hold a membership vote on whether a one-day strike should take place on February 15, 2007. The announcement criticized the committee’s tactics and previous offers. The union also scheduled several meetings, including a meeting for the actual vote to take place on February 14. During a January 10 meeting, the membership voted to approve the motion for a strike vote to be held on February 14. The committee, expecting that a strike vote would take place, petitioned the board to initiate an investigation. The board determined that, although no vote had taken place yet, the union’s actions could reasonably be construed as inducing and encouraging a strike in violation of the act, and that a strike was likely to occur. The board issued an order requiring the union to rescind and disavow its motion for a strike vote. The union failed to comply, and the board filed a complaint in the superior court seeking enforcement of its order. The committee was permitted to intervene as a plaintiff. After a hearing, the superior court issued a restraining order, which enjoined the union from engaging in, threatening, or condoning a strike and required the union, by 11:00 a.m. on February 14, to publicly disavow the motion for a strike vote. The union was also required to inform its members of the act’s prohibited conduct and the superior court’s decision. On February 14, the union issued an e-bulletin announcing that the membership had voted to recess the meeting and to defer any discussion on the vote due to recent events. The board returned to the superior court to file a complaint for contempt on the ground that the union did not disavow a potential strike. The superior court found the union in contempt of the prior order and imposed a coercive fine. The union filed an appeal, contending that the board prematurely and improperly concluded that a strike was about to occur.