COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BEFORE THE DIVISION OF LABOR RELATIONS

AFFIDAVIT OF SEAN MAHER

I hereby depose and say as follows:

1.  My name is Sean Maher. At all times relevant to this matter, I have been President of National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) Local 495, which represents certain employees of the City of Worcester.

2.  As an executive officer of Local 495, my duties include negotiating with the City on the collective bargaining agreement and on terms and conditions of employment of members of the bargaining unit.

3.  Local 495 has been in discussion with the City on terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The discussion has included the City’s proposed changes to the health insurance plan. The Union has made several proposals to the City in exchange for agreement to the City’s health insurance and wage proposals. The City refuses to discuss the Union’s proposals.

4.  City management has stated that they do not have time to review or consider the Union’s proposals, but will proceed with changes to the health insurance benefit without bargaining.

5.  On or about May 2, 2011, the City began requiring employees in each department to attend mandatory meetings concerning City budgetary issues.

6.  As a City employee, I attended a mandatory meeting for Water Department employees on Wednesday, May 4, 2011, with Commissioner of Public Works Robert Moylan.

7.  Commissioner Moylan told the employees that he wanted them to know what was in the budget proposal he was submitting. He was proposing to eliminate 20 positions. He told employees to look around and think about which one of us would not be there as of July 1st.

8.  Commissioner Moylan asked the employees if they knew the offer the employer had put on the table that the Union had rejected. He said the Union had to tell them what was on the table. He then proceeded to provide what he understood to be the employer’s proposal in exchange for health insurance concessions. He said that he respected the Union and would respect whichever way employees voted, but that 20 jobs were on the line and they should demand an “up or down” vote on the employer’s proposal.

9.  Commissioner Moylan said the Union is the group of employees and they run the Union. He wanted to go directly to the membership to make sure they knew what was at stake and urge them to demand a vote on the employer’s proposals.

10.  Commissioner Moylan suggested that the City of Worcester may go into the State Group Insurance Plan for health insurance in the future. He described one of the currently proposed plans as “GIC light.”

11.  I asked Commissioner Moylan if it was correct that the GIC was not an option right now since the City had already adopted its own plan. He agreed. I also pointed out to Commissioner Moylan that, while he told employees the City was offering a future wage increase, he neglected to mention that nothing was on the table for prior years. He also failed to mention that the Union had made proposals.

12.  Commissioner Moylan told the employees that he thought the City’s offer was off the table as of the previous Friday, April 29th. As Union President, I had not been informed of any such deadline until that moment. Commissioner Moylan insisted on the deadline, thus suggesting that the City had not only refused to consider any Union proposals, but had already withdrawn its offer.

13.  Commissioner Moylan said that if the Union had signed a memorandum of agreement on Friday, 20 layoffs could have been avoided. He stated his opinion that contract language changes proposed by the Union were “miniscule” compared to the layoffs on the table. He told the employees they should push for a quick up or down vote on the City’s proposals.

14.  Commissioner Moylan engaged in the exact same behavior of holding mandatory employee meetings with employees to encourage them to accept the employer’s proposals on layoffs in March 2009. This behavior is the subject of a Complaint of Prohibited Practice that issued on March 2, 2011 (Case No. MUP-09-5598), which is scheduled for hearing.

15.  A Complaint of Prohibited Practice issued on March 23, 2010, over the City’s failure to bargain over changes to health insurance premium rates and co-payments in 2008 (Case No. MUP-08-5304). A hearing was held on 10/13/10 and 11/9/10, and briefs were filed on January 20, 2011.

16.  The Union remains ready and willing to bargain over a contract, including the City’s current proposals. Thus far, the City has refused to bargain at all with the Union, while encouraging employees to sign up for health insurance changes.


Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury.

Date: ______

Sean Maher

3