Suffolk County Sheriff's Department Jail 200 Nashua Street Boston, MA O21 14 (617) 635-1100 ANDREA J. CABRAL [louse of Correction 20 Bradston Street Boston, MA O2118 (617) 635-LOOO SHERIFF December 29, 2014 Edward B.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2000). Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, results in an inescapable or at least highly probable inference that a forbidden bias was present in the workplace. Wynn v. Wynn, P.C. v. Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655, 667 (2000) (citing Johansen v. NCR Comten, Inc. (Johansen), 30 Mass. App. Ct. 294, 300 (1991)).

See also Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 29 MLC 21, MUP-01-2911 (2002) (limitations period started to run on date computer program affecting overtime calculations implemented, notwithstanding employer's efforts to correct program).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003).

Here, Aime filed his charge on December 5, 2011, which months after the above-described events allegedly took place. established that the Commonwealths Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, was 1155, 1159 than six Further, Aime has not conduct constitutes a continuing 27 MLC more (2001) violation. See (employer's conduct constituted a continuing violation, because those actions had the effect of punishing a bargaining unit member activity).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). If the employer produces one or more lawful reasons for taking the adverse action against the employee, the charging party must establish that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Id. Here, the School District suspended Lyman for inappropriate statements he made during his AP Environmental Dismissal (cont.)

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP2747 (August 19, 2003). Here, Union alleges that the City repudiated the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 2010. Since the Union did not present any evidence of an evergreen clause, the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of an active agreement.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP2747 (August 19, 2003). If the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of an agreement, or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, then the CERB will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Id. Here, the Union argues that it came to an agreement with the Town during the March 27, 2012 meeting regarding Lieutenant benefits.

See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 63, 66 (2002), citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor Relations Commission, 404 Mass. 124, 127 (1989). To establish a violation of the Law, the Union must show: 1) the employer changed a pre-existing condition of employment; 2) that the change had an impact on a mandatory subject of bargaining; and 3) the change was implemented without prior notice or'an opportunity to bargain. Id.