The Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations issued a three-count complaint against the town of Marblehead Feb. 10, finding probable cause that officials violated state labor laws during contract negotiations with municipal employees.
The complaint comes after the Marblehead Municipal Employees Union filed charges in September alleging the town engaged in so-called surface bargaining, implemented workplace policies without union consent and failed to provide financial documentation requested during contract talks.
Municipal employees have worked without a contract since July, with negotiations that began in March growing increasingly contentious as the May Town Meeting approaches.
The most serious allegation in the complaint involves surface bargaining, a charge that suggests officials only pretended to negotiate in good faith, according to Terri Tauro, president of the union representing about 100 municipal workers.
“This is perhaps the most damning of all the complaints issued. The DLR only issues this complaint in the most blatant of situations,” said Tauro.
The complaint alleges town negotiators repeatedly told union representatives they needed to conduct “further analysis” on union proposals between April and August before making substantive responses. However, the DLR found that during mediation in December, town officials admitted they had never conducted the financial analysis they claimed was needed.
“All of this delay is resulting, again, in a rushed situation before the Town Meeting for my people,” Tauro said. “I’m really upset at the lack of respect for my people, 80 percent of the workforce.”
Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer characterized the union’s complaints as negotiating tactics meant to apply pressure on officials.
“The town rejected proposals that did not require spreadsheets to make a decision. The union asked for spreadsheets that did not yet exist,” Kezer said. “We believe these claims are part of their broader strategy to apply pressure on the town and force us into concessions that we feel are not justified.”
A second count alleges the town implemented new workplace policies without bargaining. According to the complaint, the town adopted policies affecting parental leave, FMLA leave and employee conduct in June 2024 without providing the union an opportunity to negotiate, even though these areas are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.
The union discovered the policy changes after they were cited in a disciplinary hearing involving a union member in September.
“The new policies were implemented to meet federal law and as part of the town’s efforts to maintain a productive, safe, and compliant workplace,” Kezer said. “If there are any policies that conflict with collective bargaining contracts, we are open to discussions but assert that these changes were essential to being compliant with current law.”
A third count involves the town’s delayed response to the union’s August information request for financial analysis of contract proposals. The complaint states that the union asked for financial justification for the town’s rejection of proposals, but did not receive a response until after mediation began in December.
“The problem with this is how can they say they cannot afford something they have not done a financial analysis on,” Tauro said. “The last COLA (cost of living adjustment) we asked for would have only cost an average of $150,000 per year.”
Both sides are scheduled to meet again with a state mediator Thursday. Union members are concerned that if they don’t secure a contract by Town Meeting, they will go another year without a raise.
Kezer disputed this characterization, noting the town had previously offered a solution that was rejected.
“The union rejected a one-year proposal last year that would have provided pay raises for employees while we would be able to continue negotiations after Town Meeting. The union members were not even made aware of the offer,” Kezer said.
The Department of Labor Relations has scheduled a formal hearing on the complaint between January and March 2026, but both sides have expressed hope that continued mediation could resolve the dispute before then.
“We are committed to reaching a fair resolution before the Town Meeting,” Kezer said. “We continue to engage in meaningful discussions with the union and remain hopeful for an agreement that reflects the town’s financial reality while addressing employee needs.”
The MMEU has expressed what it feels is the need for the Select Board to become more involved in negotiations.
If the DLR ultimately rules against the town, officials could be ordered to withdraw the contested policies and provide detailed financial analysis of why they rejected union proposals.
