Town of Lenox, 29 MLC 51, MUP-01-3214, MUP-01-3215 (September 5, 2002) (citing Town of Dennis, 26 MLC 203, 205, MUP-1868 (April 21, 2000)); Felton v. Labor Relations Commission, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 926, 928 (1992). The six-month period of limitations for filing charges begins to run when the adversely affected party receives actual or constructive notice of the conduct alleged to be an unfair labor practice.

Town of Lenox, 29 MLC 51, MUP-01-3214 and MUP-01-3215 (September 5, 2002) (citing Town of Dennis, 26 MLC 203, MUP-1868 (April 21, 2000)). It is wellestablished that the six month limitations period begins to run when the party adversely affected receives actual or constructive notice of the conduct alleged to be an unfair labor practice. Id. (citing Wakefield School Committee, 27 MLC 9, 10, MUP-2441 (August 16, 2000)).

Town of Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83 (2002); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211 (1999); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361, 1365 (1985). Once the Union establishes a prima facie case, if the Employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the Union must then prove that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981). the adverse action.

Ct. 926 (1992); Town of Dennis, 26 MLC 203 (2000). The six-month period of limitations begins to run when the adversely affected party receives actual or constructive notice of the alleged violation. Town of Lenox, 29 MLC 51, 52 (2002). The Union filed this case on November 16, 2012, beyond the statutory period of limitation. The Union did not argue or otherwise establish good cause for filing the charge late.

Town of Bolton, 32 MLC 20, 25, MUP-01-3254 (June 27, 2005)(citing Town of Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83, MUP-01-2976 (October 10, 2002); City of Peabody, 25 MLC 191, 193, MUP-9861 (May 21, 1999)).

Ct. 926 (1992); Town of Dennis, 26 MLC 203, 205, MUP-1868 (April 21, 2000). A challenge to the timely filing of a charge is an affirmative defense. City of Boston, 26 MLC 177, 181, MUP-1431 (March 23, 2000); Town of Wayland, 5 MLC 1738, 1741, MUP-2294 (March 29, 1979).

Town of Dennis, 3 MLC 1014, MUP-2129 (June 30, 1976) citing Blasingame Well Service, 174 NLRB 1126 (1969). 7 4 Dismissal (cont.) MUP-20-7847 any issues relating to working conditions that the Board has found to be concerted, protected activity. Therefore, I do not find that the March comment constitutes concerted activity.

Town of Lennox, 29 MLC 51, MUP-01-3214, MUP-01-3215 (September 5, 2002) (citing Town of Dennis, 26 MLC 203, MUP-1868 (April 21, 200)). It is wellestablished that the six-month limitation period begins to run when the party adversely affected receives actual or constructive notice of the conduct alleged to be an unfair labor practice. Id. (citing Wakefield School Committee, 27 MLC 9, MUP-2441 (August 16, 2000)).

Town of Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83 (2002); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211 (1999); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361, 1365 (1985). Once the Union establishes a prima facie case, if the Employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the Union must then prove that but for the protected activity, the Employer would not have taken the adverse action. Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981).

Town of Dennis, 29 MLC 79, 83 (2002); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211 (1999); Town of Clinton, 12MLC 1361, 1365 (1985). -Once the Union . 6stablishes a prima facie case, if the Employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the Unicn-must then prove that but for" the protected activity, - _ the Employer would not have taken the adverse action.

See, e.g., Town of Northbridge, 38 MLC 1, 4 (2011) (plan design); Town of Dennis, 28 MLC 297 (2002) (prescription drug co-payments); Medford Sch. Comm., 4 MLC 1450 (1977), aff'd sub nom., Sch. Comm. of Medford v. Labor Relations Commn, 380 Mass. 932 (1980) (percentage of employer contributions to premiums).

See, e.g., Town of Northbridge, 38 MLC 1, 4 (2011) (plan design); Town of Dennis, 28 MLC 297 (2002) (prescription drug co-payments); Medford Sch. Comm., 4 MLC 1450 (1977), aff'd sub nom., Sch. Comm. of Medford v. Labor Relations Commn, 380 Mass. 932 (1980) (percentage of employer contributions to premiums).