News

National Labor Relations Board Sides with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP

 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP attorneys successfully represented their client, hereby referred to as “the Employer,” in a Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) granted the request after determining that the Acting Regional Director’s decision to overrule the Employer’s challenge of the legitimacy of a ballot signature without a hearing was “clearly erroneous.”

 

In August 2020, the Employer and the opposing party, hereby referred to as “the Petitioner,” held an election that was conducted by mail ballot. Upon careful review of the ballots, the Employer challenged a determinative ballot on the grounds that the signature on the ballot was illegible and did not match any prior signatures for that employee. The Employer provided several legal documents from their files that showed the employee’s signature in support of their challenge. Despite citing many distinctions between the ballot signature and the employee’s signature on the provided documents, the Acting Regional Director determined that there was a lack of evidence proving the signature to be fraudulent. The Employer then filed a Request for Review with the NLRB. In June 2021, the Employer received a Decision on Review and Order Remanding from the NLRB. The Board found that the Employer’s challenge raised “substantial and material issues” and ordered the case to be remanded to the Acting Regional Director for a hearing on the validity of the ballot.

 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP is one of the 50 largest firms in Massachusetts, their years of experience and resources offer clients throughout New England and nationally a wide range of legal services while maintaining a “hands-on touch” that is important in Client-Attorney relationships. To provide this kind of service, they established a multi-service firm comprised of skilled practitioners from a variety of fields. This enables them to bring to their clients the breadth of experience and depth of knowledge required for complex cases. Their broad resources and technology enable them to represent clients in a comprehensive and cost-efficient manner. MHTL has a strong reputation in the legal community and is known throughout New England for its labor and employment practice as well as its extensive business litigation and advising employers on internal reviews and strategic legal approaches when dealing with the government. The firm also has an extensive education law practice representing public, private, and nonprofit educational institutions from pre-K through the college and university level.

 

 

Latest News

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Partner Prevails in U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

  Attorney Felicia Vasudevan, a partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, received a favorable decision on behalf of her client, Marshfield Public Schools. The Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgement that upheld a decision of the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”). However, as the notice was filed more than 30 days after entry, the First Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff also appealed the district court’s order, denying her motion to vacate. Read More

Legal Updates

New Features of Public Participation at School Committee Meetings

Following our Alert from March 16, 2023, Civility is Dead – The Supreme Court Rules Municipal Control of Public Speak Limited to Reasonable Time/Place/Manner Restrictions, which discussed the holding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Barron v. Kolenda and the Town of Southborough (SJC-13284), we promised to bring you more detailed guidance on developing a Public Speak policy for your public body or municipality. The Barron case involved a constitutional challenge to the Town of Southborough’s public comment policy, which attempted to impose a code of civility on members of the public who participated in public comment before public bodies. In Barron, the court interpreted the state constitution to mean that public bodies may request, but not require, that public commentators be respectful and courteous. Instead, a public body may set restrictions on reasonable time, place, and manner comments to ensure that the meeting retains an orderly and peaceable manner.

Braintree, MA

50 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 410,
Braintree, MA 02184

Boston, MA

75-101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110

Tel: (617) 479-5000
Tel: (888) 841-4850
Fax: (617) 479-6469

Quincy, MA

Crown Colony Plaza
300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410
P.O. Box 9126
Quincy, MA 02169-9126

© 2023 Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Interactive Palette