The appeals panel heard competing interpretations of a Boston personnel contract (the CHOPS arrangement) in a dispute over whether compensatory time granted when firefighters redeemed vacation days is a "wage" under the Massachusetts Wage Act or discretionary contingent compensation.

City counsel Neil Janowitz told the panel that the CHOPS contract plainly tied comp time to an annual vacation redemption election and that comp time is contingent compensation rather than ordinary wages. He relied on recent Supreme Judicial Court and First Circuit precedents discussed in briefing and argued that, under Nunez and related cases, contingent bonuses or post‑employment payouts are not wages triggering treble damages and fee awards.

On behalf of retired chiefs Gerard ("Gerry") Fontana and John Walsh, Paul Kevin Flavin said the contract and the city's own practices created an ambiguity: comp time was carried year‑to‑year and many retirees were paid comp hours at retirement, and retirement paperwork in the record includes a comp‑time line item. "When they redeem their vacation time, we're getting paid for the vacation time, and I'm awarded 10 of comp time," Flavin said, asserting the practical effect was double payment absent an express contractual limitation.

The court probed whether the record contains evidence explaining why some former CHOPS received payouts and others did not and whether the contract language was ambiguous so as to permit extrinsic evidence about historical practice and forms. Counsel for the city said the administrative record did not explain inconsistent payments and argued a clear contract prevents extrinsic adjustment to create a wage claim. The panel left the matter submitted for decision.