Russell, Esq. 271 Main St., Suite 302 Stoneham, MA 02180 Appearance for Respondent: David C. Jenkins, Esq. Jared M. Collins, Esq. KP Law, PC 101 Arch Street Boston, MA 02110 Commissioner: Paul M.

Accordingly, Town of Stoneham v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, Docket No. 14-P-245 (March 25, 2015).

Town of Stoneham, 6 MDLR 1639 (1984) (M.G.L.c.6,172, may not be used by 33 police departments, as prospective employers, to circumvent . . . M.G.L.c.151B,4(9).

Name (print) Signature Mike Caprigno | Title LV Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 5 Glen Road, #305, Stoneham, MA 02180 President | Telephone Number | 781-838-2103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that | have served a copy of this Charge of Prohibited Practice on the following representative of the opposing party. Name Charles J. Abate, Jr., Esq.

First, as noted by the Employer at the in-person investigation, the Boston Herald initially The Union also cites Town of Stoneham, 3 MLC 1355 (1977) to support its position. However, Stoneham is a hearing officer decision, and thus not precedential.

See Town of Stoneham, 19 MLC, 1345, 1350 (1992) (loss of opportunity to perform work or represent additional members adversely impacts the bargaining unit); City of New Bedford, 15 MLC 1732, 1739 (1989). Present at the investigation were the president of the HTA as well as the MTA Field Representative for the HTA, who had 10 See Groton-Dunstable Regl Sch. Comm. v.

See Town of Stoneham, 19 MLC, 1345, 1350 (1992) (loss of opportunity to perform work or represent additional members adversely impacts the bargaining unit); City of New Bedford, 15 MLC 1732, 1739 (1989). Present at the investigation were the president of the HTA as well as the MTA Field Representative for the HTA, who had 10 See Groton-Dunstable Regl Sch. Comm. v.

Town of Stoneham, 39 MLC 1, 5 (2012). 16 Regarding waiver by inaction, there can be no reasonable argument that the Union failed to bargain in this matter.

Decision (contd) SUP-08-5453 opportunity to perform work. prong requires Town of Stoneham, 19 MLC 1345, 1350 (1992). proof that the Employer failed to give the Union The third prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over the impacts of the decision to transfer the work. no adverse impact on the bargaining The College argues that there was because it did not abolish the Science Laboratory Technician II position. that it gave the Union notice and

(citations and footnote omitted) (emphasis added); see also Town of Stoneham and Stoneham Police Association, MassCop Local 266, 2012 WL 3112362 (MA LRC), 7 (Towns decision to reassign a patrol officer from dispatch to street duty is a core managerial decision implicating public safety that does not require bargaining.) (emphasis added).