The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the City of Newton unfairly retaliated against a Newton police sergeant for union-related activities.

Sgt. John Babcock was transferred from his role where he had normal daytime working hours to another role working irregular nighttime hours, weekends and holidays.

While Babcock received additional pay, the court ruled that this did not mean he was not being retaliated against.

Babcock had been working for the department since 1987 and was promoted from patrol officer to sergeant in 2009. In 2014, he was elected vice president of the Superior Officers’ Union, becoming the union negotiator for contracts with the city.

This brought Babcock into contact with David MacDonald, who was executive officer, and then, beginning in 2015, chief of police.

The two reportedly did not get along, and in 2016, the year Babcock became union president, MacDonald allegedly yelled and threw items at Babcock during contract negotiations.

While MacDonald denied hitting him, he apologized and said he could get “hot and wordy.”

There were additional disagreements. Babcock was able to block a proposed change regarding special leave, as the union threatened to file an unfair labor practice charge. When Babcock said MacDonald had no right to place another union member on administrative leave and order the member to take a psychological test, MacDonald reportedly called him “obstructionist.”

Babcock also filed a grievance on behalf of another sergeant who claimed he was not being paid overtime appropriately.

Babcock was transferred to the Patrol Bureau while these union disputes were ongoing.

While Babcock acknowledged that he had engaged in one incident of poor behavior (namely, getting into a public argument with another police officer) he did not think this merited him being transferred to a position with worse hours.

MacDonald allegedly responded that he was the chief and could do what he wanted.

Babcock said this new shift, with rotating hours and sometimes only an eight-hour break between shifts, had a negative impact on his life, and particularly on his children.

The union filed a complaint, and the city’s Law Department said that the transfer was a reasonable response to his “insubordination and misconduct.”

The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board said that the City could not prove that this misconduct merited the transfer, and said the city needed to return Babcock to his previous position.

The City appealed, and the Appeals Court said that because Babcock received an 8% increase in financial compensation, it was not retaliation.

But the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed. The SJC said that an 8% pay increase did not mean that the new shift’s hours were not materially worse than the previous shift, especially because the hearing officer for the initial case filing had said that regular daytime hours were considered advantageous. They also noted that before Babcock, no officer with a specialty assignment had been involuntarily transferred; this was not normal department practice.

The SJC also did not think that relatively minor disciplinary infractions over the course of a long career, such as a public argument with another officer, constituted enough misconduct to justify the transfer, and that MacDonald’s charge of ‘insubordination’ came from accusing Babcock of interfering with another officer’s work (which was untrue), and from Babcock expecting an explanation for his involuntary transfer.

The SJC quoted a 1976 decision, Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, in which the SJC ruled that “proof of unlawful discrimination rarely can be established by direct evidence and that an employer’s seemingly arbitrary action or pretended explanation for [an action] should not be permitted to justify conduct which is in fact unlawfully discriminatory.”

Because of this, the Court ruled that Babcock had been discriminated against for his union activities.