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.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP-2747 (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 Board will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Id. Here, the Town provided no evidence of an agreement to extend the parties collective bargaining agreement.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30, 2002).

Saugus School Comm., MUP-06-4765, 2008 WL 5395597 (May 28, 2008) (citations omitted) (citing Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253, 259 (2002)). To meet its burden in this case, the Union must demonstrate that the Police Chief dealt directly with 5 bargaining unit members concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining to the exclusion of the Union. See City of Pittsfield, 33 MLC 167, 168 (2007). 24.

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).

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 160, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 92, MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000). The charging party bears the burden of proving that, but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Athol-Royalston 9 Dismissal (cont'd.)

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30, 2002) (citations omitted). Here, there is no dispute that the interview was investigatory in nature or that Sgft. Ballinger reasonably believed the interview could result in discipline. Rather, the Union argues that the Town intentionally misled Sgt. Ballinger into believing that Union counsel was on her way to deny him his right to Union representation.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30, 2002) (citations omitted). 2 A transcript of the interview was entered into evidence. The transcript indicates that the interview began at 1509 hours. | take administrative notice that this was 3:09 p.m. Corrected Complaint and Partial Dismissal (contd.) | MUP-16-5412 MUP-17-5782 Here, there is no dispute that the interview was investigatory in nature or that Sgt.

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

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (Jan. 30, 2000) (citing SEIU, Local 509, 431 Mass. at 715). Second, direct dealing undermines the employees belief that the union actually possesses the power of exclusive representation to which the statute entitles it. Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC at 295.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 258-259, MUP-2840 (January 30, 2002); Millis School Committee, 23 MLC 99, 100, MUP-9038 (October 8, 1996); Blue Hills Regional School Committee, 3 MLC 1613, MUP 2244 (April 19, 1977).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259 (2002) (citing Service Employees International Union v. Labor Relations Commission, 431 Mass. 710, 715 (2000)). Second, direct dealing undermines employees belief that the union actually possesses the power of exclusive representation to which the statute entitles it.

Town of Harwich, supra, citing Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253 (2002), SEIU, Local 509, supra. Second, direct dealing undermines the employees belief that the union possesses the power of exclusive representation to which the statute entitles it. SEJU, Local 509, 431 Mass. at 715.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department and Suffolk County Hail Employees, 28 MLC 253, 257 (2002) (explaining that the employer could have filed an appropriate charge challenging the Unions conduct for attempting to frustrate the grievance and arbitration process). SENAs actions are a classic example of an abuse of the grievance and arbitration process.

See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253, 261 (2002). Under these circumstances, the Board affirms the Investigator that there is not probable cause to believe that the Unions actions here violate the Law. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Board, having found no error in the Investigator's overall analysis of the facts or law, affirms the dismissal of this charge.

It cites the former Labor Relations Commissions (Commission) discussion in Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253 (2002), in which it notes that the employer could have filed a charge against the union under Section 10(b)(2) of the Law based on the unions filing of multiple grievances on the same issue, rather than a class action grievance.