May 24, 2012

Ratification of three-year contract ends labor dispute at Longy School of Music in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Faculty members represented by the American Federation of Teachers, Massachusetts, yesterday ratified a three-year collective bargaining agreement with The Longy School of Music in Cambridge, ending a long-running labor dispute and averting a trial before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge.

In addition to across-the-board wage increases over three years, the contract - which is the school’s first collective-bargaining agreement with faculty members - provides for employment stability sought by the union by establishing five-year faculty appointments, and also provides for flexibility in work assignments sought by the school, as the School looks forward to implementing its short and long term plans. The union and the school also reached a comprehensive backpay settlement agreement regarding alleged discrimination against individual faculty members.

The School’s faculty elected the union on January 20, 2010, and the school and the union had been negotiating for an initial labor contract for almost a year.  The final agreement was reached in mid-February, after a week of intensive negotiations at the NLRB regional offices in Boston (Region 1), facilitated by an NLRB judge and trial attorneys.

“I am pleased that the parties were able to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement of these issues without the need for a lengthy trial and the delay that is inherent in litigation,” said Rosemary Pye, NLRB Regional Director in Boston. “It is noteworthy that the parties have reached an initial collective-bargaining agreement with a term of three years.  This will give the employer and the union an opportunity to build a strong base for future labor relations.”

Following an investigation, Region One of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against The Longy School of Music in October 2010, alleging that the School had engaged in bargaining with no intent to reach a collective-bargaining agreement and had made multiple changes in assignments and other employment conditions without having engaged in the requisite bargaining with the union.  The complaint also alleged numerous discriminatory acts against employees in retaliation for their support of the Union.

On January 4, 2011, responding to an NLRB petition, Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge Patti Saris entered an order granting certain interim injunctive relief, including a bargaining obligation.

© Copyright 2012 National Labor Relations Board

About the Author

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

866-667-6572

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.