State rules against Revere in residency challenge

REVERE – A state arbitrator ruled the city violated a contract with municipal union members last July when it attempted to enforce a local live-where-you-work rule.”While the city may have a legitimate interest in having city employees be residents of the city as a requirement for employment, it cannot enforce that provision without first bargaining with the union to include such language. It did not do so,” wrote Arbitrator Arnold Marrow in his decision.The ruling did not surprise Mayor Thomas Ambrosino, who said the bottom line is that the city must “cease and desist efforts to enforce the Residency Ordinance against union members.”Union representatives for city laborers challenged a City Council attempt last July 15 to question Public Works employee Joseph Lake’s residency status with Ward 4 Councilor George Rotondo claiming Lake lived in West Peabody.City Clerk John Henry notified Lake of the challenge and gave him the 10 days prescribed under the residency ordinance to provide proof of his residency. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 93 filed a grievance stating the union’s contract with the city does not include a live-where-you-work provision for union members and calling the challenge an unfair labor practice.Ambrosino denied the grievance last August and stated the residency ordinance could be enforced against employees hired after the city established residency.The council instituted residency in 1981 but rarely enforced the ordinance. Revelations of non-residents working for the city in 2001 led to the law’s revamping in 2002.Under the 2002 ordinance, the mayor, a councilor or a city resident can file a written challenge to a municipal employee’s residency status. State law exempts teachers from residency and provides a 15-mile residency zone for public safety workers around the community where they work.In arguing the union’s position, Local 93 President Frederick Dandrow pointed out the city’s inconsistent enforcement of residency. City officials tried to claim that management rights language in Local 93’s contract gave the city the right to ensure local residents hold city jobs.