Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259-259 (2002); Millis School Committee, 23 MLC 99, 100 (1996); Blue Hills Regional School Committee, 3 MLC 1613 (1977). An employer's direct dealing with employees in the bargaining unit violates the employee organization's statutory right to speak exclusively for the employees who have selected it to serve as their sole representative. Service Employees International Union, AFL- ClO, Local 509 v.

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 dealing with employees 1613, MUP 2244 (April 19, 1977). in the bargaining An employer's direct unit violates the employee organizations statutory right to speak exclusively for the employees who have selected it to serve as their sole representative.

See, Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155 (Failure to consider employee for an assignment constitutes adverse action.); City of Peabody, 28 MLC 281 (2002) (A letter counseling police officers about their duties did not constitute adverse action.) Absent evidence that Hos questions were punitive in any way, they cannot be considered adverse action.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 160 (2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 92 (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 Regional School Committee, 28 MLC 204, 214 (2002); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211 (1999).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (Jan. 30, 2000) (citing Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 509 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.

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.

In Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, the Board affirmed that unscheduled overtime is not a term or condition of employment obligating the employer to bargain. 39 MLC 100, SUP-09-5493, SUP-09-5496, (October 25, 2012). The facts in this case show the overtime opportunities at the Dispatch Center are ad hoc, as opposed to being a consistent or regular occurrence for those police officers or firefighters qualified to fill in.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, MUP-2630, MUP-2747 (Aug. 19, 2003); City of Boston, 26 MLC at 217. If the language of the agreement is ambiguous, the Board looks to the parties bargaining history to determine whether there was an agreement. City of Waltham, 25 MLC 59, 60, MUP-1427 (Sept. 8, 1998). The investigative record does not contain any evidence of the parties bargaining history regarding Article 14 of the CBA.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, | | 6 (2003). The parties here dispute the temporal meaning of paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement. The Union asserts that the phrase: reimbursement for 03 coverage of classes and labs for the remainder of the 2004 fall semester means reimbursement for the costs associated with an 03 employee instructing during scheduled class meetings and labs until the end of the 2004 fall semester.