Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (December 22, 1992). The CERB does not analyze the motivation behind the conduct, Town of Chelmsford, 8 MLC 1913, 1916, MUP-4620 (March 12, 1982), aff'd sub nom. Town of Chelmsford v. Labor Relations Commission, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (1983), or whether the coercion succeeded or failed. Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee, 15 MLC 1551, 1556, MUP-6748 (March 20, 1989).
Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (December 22, 1992). AFSCME alleges that the same conduct it alleges violated Section 10(a)(3) also constitutes an independent 10(a)(1) because it would tend to intimidate or coerce employees from engaging in their Section 2 rights. DeMarco asserts that BPHCs actions at issue in this matter embarrassed him in front of his peers, but his subjective feelings about the actions is not dispositive.
Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591 (1992). The MMEA has not and cannot meet its burden to demonstrate interference, restraint, or coercion in this case. The conduct alleged to be interference in this case cannot rise to the level to which a reasonable employee would consider their rights to be restrained. In this case, Mr. Brumby had a respectful and professional conversation with Ms.
Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 91, 15 MUP-1986 (December 8, 2000); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 212, MUP-1448 (June 11, 16 1999); Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1595, MUP-7514 (December 12, 1992); 17 Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee, 15 MLC 1551, 1555, MUP-6748 (March 18 20, 1989). The focus of the Section 10(a)(1) analysis is the effect of the employers 19 conduct on reasonable employees exercise of their Section 2 rights.
A finding of illegal motivation is not generally Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596 (1995). Rather, the focus of the inquiry is eam neeeeeee meee 1154, 1161 (1994). 1. The Union Cannot Point to Any Statement Attributable to the Department as an Employer Within the Meaning of G.
A finding of illegal motivation is not generally Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596 (1995). Rather, the focus of the inquiry is eam neeeeeee meee 1154, 1161 (1994). 1. The Union Cannot Point to Any Statement Attributable to the Department as an Employer Within the Meaning of G.
Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596 (1992). It is well established that discipline arising out of concerted, protected conduct during a grievance chills 11 reasonable employees from exercising their rights to participate in grievance proceedings. See e.g., Bristol County at 109; City of Boston, 26 MLC 80, 83 (2000).
The Board of Chelmsford, does not analyze 8 MLC 1913, Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC the motivation 1916 (1982), 21 Town 22 Chelmsford v. Labor Relations Commission, 10 behind aff'd sub 1591, 1596 the conduct, nom. Town !Id.; of 15 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (1983), or H.O. Decision (contd.) SUP-12-1829 whether the coercion succeeded Committee, 1551, 15 MLC or failed. Groton-Dunstable 1556 (1989).
City of Lowell, 29 MLC 33 (2002); Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 30, 1591, 1597 (1992). The DLR has held it does not effectuate the purpose of the law to subject each phrase in the [statement] to a litmus test of permissibility, rather than considering the context and tone of the [statement] as Association, 38 MLC a whole. 13 (2011).
City of Lowell, 29 MLC 33 (2002); Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1597 (1992). The DLR has held it does not effectuate the purpose of the law to subject each phrase in the [statement] to a litmus test of permissibility, rather than considering the context and tone of the [statement] as a whole. Association, 38 MLC 13 (2011).
See, e.g., Andover School Committee, 40 MLC 1, MUP-12-2294 (July 2, 2013) (citing Town ofWinchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1597 (1992) (an employee engages in protected concerted activity when s/he engages in activity protesting working conditions, or speaks publicly about issues affecting employees wages, hours or terms and conditions of employment)).