Joint Employer Rule: Labor & Employment Law

Massachusetts Nurses Association Petition Dismissed in Employer Dispute

The Massachusetts Nurses Association’s (MNA) attempt too add approximately 10 non-supervisory nurse practitioners at the Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital to an existing bargaining unit has been rejected, with the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) dismissing the petition on September 26, 2025. The central issue revolved around whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the proper public employer for these practitioners, a claim the CERB ultimately refuted.

Union Sought to Expand Bargaining unit

On April 17, 2025, the MNA filed a petition seeking to include the nurse practitioners, employed at the Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital, into statewide bargaining unit 7 via an add-on election. The petition initially named the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, specifically the Secretary of Management and Finance through the Department of Mental Health (DMH), as the appropriate public employer. The union argued the Commonwealth shared a joint employer relationship with the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School.

Did you know? – Chapter 150E of Massachusetts law governs public sector labor relations, outlining the rights and responsibilities of unions and public employers. It establishes the framework for collective bargaining in the public sector.

Commonwealth Argued Lack of Employer Relationship

The Commonwealth countered with a motion to dismiss, asserting it was not the public employer under Chapter 150E of the law. According to the motion, existing case law did not support a joint employer relationship with UMass Chan, and no “remarkable circumstances†existed to justify expanding the bargaining unit.

Union’s Arguments for Joint Employment

In opposition, the MNA presented three key arguments. First, they maintained the Commonwealth shared a joint employer relationship with UMass Chan based on established case law. Second, they cited statutory law and an Interdepartmental Service Agreement (ISA) as evidence of this shared relationship. the union argued the petitioned-for employees shared a “community of interest†with those already in bargaining unit 7, justifying their inclusion.

Pro tip:– An Interdepartmental Service Agreement (ISA) is a contract between state agencies outlining the terms of shared services or resources. These agreements can be central to employer relationship disputes.

CERB Sides with the Commonwealth

After reviewing all submissions, the CERB sided with the Commonwealth, allowing the motion to dismiss the petition. The board persistent the MNA failed to demonstrate the necessary facts to establish a joint employer configuration. “In light of the Legislature’s express intent to distinguish between Commonwealth employees and the employees of the universities,†the CERB stated, “we find that the Commonwealth and UMass Chan do not share a joint employer relationship over the petitioned-for employees, and thus the Commonwealth is improperly named as the Employer on the petition.â€

The decision underscores the legal distinctions between state employees and those affiliated with the University of massachusetts system,effectively halting the MNA’s efforts to expand its bargaining power in this instance. The case,In the Matter of Massachusetts nurses Association and Commonwealth of Massachusetts,Secretary of Administration and Finance and Board of Trustees,University of Massachusetts (Lawyers Weekly no. 21-023-25, Docket No. SCR-25-11226), highlights the complexities of defining employer relationships in public sector labor disputes.

Reader question:– How might this decision impact future unionization efforts involving employees with affiliations to both state agencies and the University of Massachusetts system?