Home 
Labor and Personnel Quinn cut causes local headaches
The state’s decision to underfund the Police Career Incentive Pay Program by $48 million for fiscal 2010 has caused a great deal of legal confusion at the local level.
The 254 cities and towns that have adopted the program, commonly known as the Quinn Bill, are all funding their local share, even in these tough fiscal times, but they cannot afford to assume the state’s share, which was cut by 83 percent.
Police unions, meanwhile, are threatening – and pursuing – legal action, claiming that communities now bear the obligation to make sure that the program’s benefits are 100 percent funded. Cities and towns are likely to face litigation unless the governor and the Legislature clarify that cities and towns have no obligation to fund the state’s share of the program.
Communities accepted the Quinn Bill based on the state’s 50-50 promise, and local officials contend that no community would have accepted the bill if the obligation was 100 percent local.
At the local level, there are several different scenarios.
Some communities have language in their union contract that says the municipality is not responsible for assuming any of the state’s share of Quinn Bill payments in the event that the state cuts its funding. Police unions in Mashpee and elsewhere, however, are already mounting court challenges, claiming that this contract language is not legally binding – even though it was subject to collective bargaining and the unions agreed to it.
Police unions also may try to claim that failure to pay the full amount is a violation of sections 148 and 150 of Chapter 149 regarding the payment of wages. Such violations can result in treble damages plus attorneys’ fees. The MMA has called on the Legislature and the governor to enact corrective language to clarify that failure to pay the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is not a violation of Chapter 149.
Ultimately, cities and towns face the possibility of incurring legal costs to defend contract provisions that their unions freely agreed to.
Other communities have contract language stating that the community will make up the difference in Quinn Bill payments, although no city or town envisioned that the state would underfund the program so dramatically. These communities can be expected to meet with their unions to reach some agreement or accommodation.
Most communities, however, have no contract language outlining what is to happen in the event that the state fails to fund the Quinn program. These cities and towns may be required to pay the full amount – both the state and municipal share – due to a 1990 Supreme Judicial Court decision involving the town of Milton. The SJC held that the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is subject to appropriation each year, and, therefore, communities are required to ensure the full payment of the stipend regardless of what the state appropriates.
Communities that have adopted the Quinn Bill are advised to begin by consulting with their municipal or labor counsel to determine where they stand.
The MMA has called on the state to take responsibility for its decision, rather than simply passing the buck to cities and towns, which, ironically, may force public safety cutbacks and/or increases in local property taxes.
The state has ended the Quinn program for new hires only.
Labor and Personnel Quinn cut causes local headaches
Quinn cut causes local headaches
The state’s decision to underfund the Police Career Incentive Pay Program by $48 million for fiscal 2010 has caused a great deal of legal confusion at the local level.
The 254 cities and towns that have adopted the program, commonly known as the Quinn Bill, are all funding their local share, even in these tough fiscal times, but they cannot afford to assume the state’s share, which was cut by 83 percent.
Police unions, meanwhile, are threatening – and pursuing – legal action, claiming that communities now bear the obligation to make sure that the program’s benefits are 100 percent funded. Cities and towns are likely to face litigation unless the governor and the Legislature clarify that cities and towns have no obligation to fund the state’s share of the program.
Communities accepted the Quinn Bill based on the state’s 50-50 promise, and local officials contend that no community would have accepted the bill if the obligation was 100 percent local.
At the local level, there are several different scenarios.
Some communities have language in their union contract that says the municipality is not responsible for assuming any of the state’s share of Quinn Bill payments in the event that the state cuts its funding. Police unions in Mashpee and elsewhere, however, are already mounting court challenges, claiming that this contract language is not legally binding – even though it was subject to collective bargaining and the unions agreed to it.
Police unions also may try to claim that failure to pay the full amount is a violation of sections 148 and 150 of Chapter 149 regarding the payment of wages. Such violations can result in treble damages plus attorneys’ fees. The MMA has called on the Legislature and the governor to enact corrective language to clarify that failure to pay the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is not a violation of Chapter 149.
Ultimately, cities and towns face the possibility of incurring legal costs to defend contract provisions that their unions freely agreed to.
Other communities have contract language stating that the community will make up the difference in Quinn Bill payments, although no city or town envisioned that the state would underfund the program so dramatically. These communities can be expected to meet with their unions to reach some agreement or accommodation.
Most communities, however, have no contract language outlining what is to happen in the event that the state fails to fund the Quinn program. These cities and towns may be required to pay the full amount – both the state and municipal share – due to a 1990 Supreme Judicial Court decision involving the town of Milton. The SJC held that the state’s share of the Quinn Bill is subject to appropriation each year, and, therefore, communities are required to ensure the full payment of the stipend regardless of what the state appropriates.
Communities that have adopted the Quinn Bill are advised to begin by consulting with their municipal or labor counsel to determine where they stand.
The MMA has called on the state to take responsibility for its decision, rather than simply passing the buck to cities and towns, which, ironically, may force public safety cutbacks and/or increases in local property taxes.
The state has ended the Quinn program for new hires only.
