City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). Once the charging party establishes 153, a prima facie case, if the employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the charging party 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).

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-04-4503 (January 9, 2009). The Board has consistently defined adverse action as an adverse personnel action. 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)).

FAX Number 7 413.534.2297 ZIP code) 57 Suffolk Street Holyoke MA 01040 EMPLOYER'S LABOR RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE 8. Name 9. Telephone Number Stephen Zrike 413.534.2005 10,11,12,13. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) [14. FAX Number 413.534.2297 | 57 Suffolk Street Holyoke MA 01040 15. E-mail address 16. Firm/Organization szrike@hps.holyoke.ma.us Name Holyoke Public Schools EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION (if any) |18. Telephone 17.

The City of Holyoke (City) is a public employer within the meaning of Section 1 of the Law. _ Amended Complaint (con't.) MUP-15-4956 - 4959 The School Committee is the Citys collective bargaining representative for the purpose of dealing with school employees. In April 2015, DESE designated the Holyoke School District as a chronically underperforming district, in accordance with Section 1K.

Address (street and No., city/town, state, and 413.534.2297 ZIP code) 57 Suffolk Street Holyoke MA 01040 EMPLOYER'S LABOR RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE 9. Telephone Number 8. Name 413.534.2005 Stephen Zrike (14. FAX Number '10,11,12,13. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 57 Suffolk Street Holyoke MA 01040 15. E-mail address szrike@hps.holyoke.ma.us 413.534.2297 | 16.

The City of Holyoke (City) is a public employer within the meaning of Section 1 of the Law. _ Amended Complaint (con't.) MUP-15-4956 - 4959 The School Committee is the Citys collective bargaining representative for the purpose of dealing with school employees. In April 2015, DESE designated the Holyoke School District as a chronically underperforming district, in accordance with Section 1K.

The City of Holyoke (City) is a public employer within the meaning of Section 1 of the Law. 2. The School Committee is the Citys collective bargaining representative for the purpose of dealing with school employees. 3. In April 2015, DESE designated the Holyoke School District as a chronically underperforming district, in accordance with Section 1K. 4.

City of Holyoke, 29 MLC 97, 98 (2002) (citing Cohasset School Committee, MUP 419 (1973)). If Krouners termination is arbitrable, this case presents the perfect situation for the Department's discretionary deferral to arbitration rather than a waste of its resources on an unnecessary investigation and possible litigation.

The [DLR] has consistently defined adverse action as an adverse personnel action, such as a suspension, discharge, involuntary transfer or reduction in supervisory activity. 289, 291 (2009), citing City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009), CES, and CES City of Boston, 35 MLC The record demonstrates that alone, made the decision to terminate Krouner for a variety of reasons that pertained exclusively to his conduct and performance as a CES employee.

The Charging Party cannot meet its threshold burden to produce evidence that DYS consistently defined adverse took an adverse action action against Krouner. as an adverse personnel action, discharge, involuntary transfer or reduction in supervisory activity. 289, 291 (2009), citing City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009).

D-03-2 CITY OF HOLYOKE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, Appointing Authority Appellants Attorney: John Connor, Esq. Moriarty & Connor, LLC 101 State Street, Suite 501 Springfield, MA 01103-2070 Respondents Attorney: Melissa M. Shea, Esq. Sullivan, Hayes & Quinn One Monarch Place, Suite 1200 Springfield, MA 01144-1200 Commissioner: John J. Guerin, Jr.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 2009). 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, To support a claim of unlawful motivation, a charging party may rely on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. City of Holyoke, 38 MLC at 156.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-04-4503 (Jan. 9, 2009); Town of Carver, 35 MLC 29, 47, MUP-03-3094 (June 30, 2008); City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361, 1365, MUP-5659 (Nov. 9, 1985). It is undisputed that Andrade engaged in concerted, protected activity, and that the School Committee knew of the concerted, protected activity.

See City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009). Having to repeatedly pursue grievances to secure basic contractual and other employment rights must be considered such a disadvantage to effectuate the statutory purpose of shielding union officials in their multiple roles. A conclusion that repeatedly withholding benefits from Ms.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, if the Commonwealth provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the charging party must then prove that but for the protected activity, the Commonwealth would not have taken the adverse action. Trustees of Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commission, 384 Mass. 559, 565566 (1981).

See Dismissal at 8, citing City of Holyoke, 38 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). The Investigator also considered the alleged deviation in past practice: a change in method of delivery to be insufficient to sustain a finding of unlawful motivation. Dismissal at 9.

City of Holyoke, 38 MLC at 156; Town of Carver, 35 MLC 29, 48 MUP-03-3894 (June 30, 2008) (citing Town of Brookfield, 28 MLC at 327-28); Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009). 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). Here, the first two elements of the Union's prima facie case are undisputed.