## Facts

- The Boston Teachers Union (BTU) was the exclusive bargaining representative for Boston public school teachers, and collective bargaining with the Boston School Committee was contentious in 2006–2007.
- In January 2007, BTU membership approved a motion to hold a strike-authorization vote on February 14, 2007, with public statements indicating a one-day strike could occur on February 15, 2007.
- BTU communications to members and public reporting discussed and promoted the planned strike vote.
- The School Committee petitioned the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB), asserting BTU was unlawfully “inducing, encouraging or condoning” a strike in violation of G.L. c. 150E, § 9A(a).
- CERB found no strike had yet occurred but concluded BTU’s conduct could reasonably be construed as encouraging and inducing a strike and that a strike was likely; CERB ordered BTU to rescind and publicly disavow the strike-vote motion and to inform members.
- BTU did not comply, and CERB sought judicial enforcement in Superior Court; the School Committee intervened.
- The Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining BTU from engaging in, threatening, or condoning a strike and requiring BTU to publicly disavow the strike-vote motion and notify members by 11:00 a.m. on February 14.
- On February 14, BTU circulated an e-bulletin stating the meeting would recess and discussion of the strike vote would be deferred, without expressly disavowing the strike-vote motion or stating a strike was unlawful.
- CERB sought contempt; the Superior Court found BTU in civil contempt and imposed a $30,000 coercive sanction payable to the Commonwealth.
- BTU appealed the contempt judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported CERB’s finding that BTU “encouraged and induced” a strike under G.L. c. 150E, § 9A, despite no strike occurring.
2. Whether the TRO, issued before the strike vote, was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and assembly.
3. Whether the civil contempt finding and $30,000 coercive fine were improper or an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court upheld CERB’s conclusion that BTU violated § 9A by encouraging and inducing a strike.
- The court held the TRO was not an unconstitutional prior restraint because it regulated unlawful strike-inducement conduct rather than suppressing protected debate.
- The court affirmed the civil contempt judgment and the $30,000 coercive sanction.

## Legal Principles

- G.L. c. 150E, § 9A prohibits public-sector unions from inducing, encouraging, or condoning a strike or work stoppage, and enforcement may occur when a strike has occurred or is about to occur.
- A union’s scheduling and promotion of a strike-authorization vote, in context, may constitute inducement or encouragement of an unlawful public-employee strike even if no strike has yet occurred.
- Injunctive relief requiring rescission and public disavowal of strike activity may be upheld where it targets statutorily prohibited strike-inducement conduct, not general advocacy about bargaining disputes.
- Civil contempt sanctions may be coercive rather than punitive; a court may impose a monetary sanction within its discretion to compel compliance with a clear court order.

## Conclusion

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed CERB’s authority to treat strike-vote organizing and related communications as unlawful inducement under § 9A, upheld a TRO requiring affirmative disavowal of the strike-vote motion against a prior-restraint challenge, and sustained a civil contempt finding with a $30,000 coercive fine for noncompliance.


Commonwealth Emp. Rels. Bd. v. Bos. Tchrs. Union, Loc. 66, AFT, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 500, 908 N.E.2d 772 (2009)