Chartrand Deputy Chief of Police Dracut Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Chartrand: I have received your petition on behalf of the Dracut Police Department (Department) requesting an extension of time to produce records, as well as permission for a waiver of statutory limits on fees that may be assessed in responding to a request. G. L. c. 66, 10(c); G. L. c. 66, 10(d)(iv); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4).

The Appellant aspires to be a police officer in his home town of Dracut, a community where such appointments are subject to the civil service law. Thus, candidates such as the Appellant must first take and pass a competitive civil service examination and have their names placed on an eligible list, created by HRD in rank order based on the Appellants exam score, veterans status and residency.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 133 (1999). 153, 156 (2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, Massport simply asked Mr. Emerson questions regarding overtime, customer service, and the images of Officer Taylor; it did not take any adverse action against Mr. Emerson on January 25, 2012. Furthermore, Mr. Emerson does not assert that Massport interviewed him in retaliation for filing a charge with the Board. In fact, Mr.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records March 6, 2023 SPR23/0387 Peter Bartlett Chief of Police Dracut Police Department 110 Loon Hill Road Dracut, MA 01826 Dear Chief Bartlett: On February 27, 2023, this office received your petition on behalf of the Dracut Police Department (Department) seeking an extension of time to produce records and permission

See Town of Dracut and In present matter, Ms. Wallace was reassigned to perform manual labor soon after Farquharson and Quigg were the subjects of a disciplinary hearing regarding the maintenance of the overtime list. In fact, Farquharson returned to the District 1 office and told Ms. Wallace that Quigg was angry and wanted Wallace to work in a truck the very next day. Ms. Wallace was then assigned to a truck. Lastly, Ms.

City of Boston, (1999). 35 MLC 289, 291 (2009); Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133 The Union contends that the Citys reassignment of Wallace from the District 1 office where she performed clerical duties to working in the field and performing manual labor constitutes adverse action. an HMEO Conversely, the City contends that it paid Wallace as and that the duties of an HMEO performing manual labor. including driving heavy motor equipment and Further,

See City of Boston 35 MLC 289 (2009); Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131 (1999). But for Ms. Santos complaints and concerns regarding her position, and statements made to her, the Employer would have never given her an opportunity to go work somewhere else. Therefore, the Employer has violated Section 10(3), and derivatively Section 10(a)(1) of the Law. 14.

Nothing in the above paragraph will be applicable or valid if the Town of Dracut discontinues the present medical and life insurance program.

City of Boston, 35 MLC 289 (2009); Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131 (1999). An adverse action must materially disadvantage an employee in some way. See City of Boston, 35 MLC 289 (2009). None of the maintenance employees suffered any adverse actions as a result of the December 22, 2021, meeting. None of them were disciplined. None of them were demoted.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133, MUP-1397 (February 17, 1999)). Many management decisions, though possibly inconvenient or even undesirable, do not constitute adverse employment actions unless the charging party is materially disadvantaged in some way. See City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009)(citing MacCormack v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133, MUP-1397 (February 17, 1999)). Many management decisions, though possibly inconvenient or even undesirable, do not constitute adverse employment actions unless the charging party is materially disadvantaged in some way. See City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009) (citing Maccormack v.