Legal Opinion

Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 16, 1993PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.

The plaintiff (union) and the defendant authority (MBTA) disagree as to whether G. L. c. 161A, § 19J, as appearing in St. 1991, c. 138, § 199, setting forth a minimum share that each MBTA employee must contribute toward the cost of his or her health insurance, justified the MBTA’s decision to deduct from the wages of members of the union a portion of their health insurance premiums, com*324mencing in December, 1991.1 The parties’ most recent collective bargaining agreement provides that, for full-time employees, the MBTA will pay the entire cost of health insurance except for the costs of dental…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simons v. American Dry Ginger Ale Co. Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
  2. Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. v. Russell Management, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Montgomery Mailers' Union No. 127 v. The Advertiser CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1987
  4. Yates v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1969
  5. Boston Lodge 264 v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Blood v. Edgar's, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
  2. Boston Housing Authority v. National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 3Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
  3. National Ass'n of Government Employees v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1995
  4. Carpenter v. Granderson (In Re Granderson)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · 1997
  5. Gustafson v. Wachusett Regional School DistrictMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API