(citing Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596-97, MUP-7514 (Dec. 22, 1992)). The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) does not analyze the motivation behind the conduct, Town of Chelmsford, 8 MLC 1913, 1916, MUP4620 (March 12, 1982), affd sub. nom. Town of Chelmsford v. Labor Relations Commission, 15 Mass. App. Ct.1107 (1983), or whether the coercion succeeded or failed.

Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591 (1992); Town of Bolton, 32 MLC 20 (2005). Considering Pixleys statement within the tone and context of its utterance, it is clear that Respondents actions have not violated section 10(a)(1) of the law. During a labor management meeting, Pixley stated that she was concerned about an employee who complained of the way she was treated during a union meeting.

Town of Winchester, 42 MLC 332, MUP- 18 13-3289, (June 23, 2016) (citing Town of Seekonk, 14 MLC 1725, 1730-31, MUP-6131 19 (May 10, 1988)). It is undisputed that the Town failed to provide the Union with an 20 opportunity to bargain over the workload impacts of its decision to require members of 21 the bargaining unit to respond to all calls for service at the College campus requiring 22 sworn personnel and/or an investigation.

Town of Winchester, MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (December 22, 1992). The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) does not analyze the motivation behind the conduct, Chelmsford, 19 Town of 8 MLC 1913, 1916, MUP-4620 (March 12, 1982), aff'd sub nom., Town of Chelmsford v. Labor Relations Commission, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (1983), or whether the coercion succeeded or failed. Groton-Dunstable MLC 1551, 1555-1556, MUP-6748 (March 20, 1989).

Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 91 (2000), citing, Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 212 (1999); Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1595 (1992). Absent a showing of animus, an employer may still violate the Law, if it discharges or takes other adverse action against an employee while he or she is engaging in protected activity, provided that the employee's own conduct does not remove him or her from the Law's protection.

Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (December 22, 1992). The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) does not analyze the motivation behind the conduct, Town of Chelmsford, 8 MLC 1913, 1916, MUP-4620 (March 12, 1982), affd sub nom. Town of Chelmsford v. Labor Relations Commission, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (1983), or whether the coercion succeeded or failed.

Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 91, 14 MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 212, MUP-1448 (June 11, 15 1999); Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1595, MUP-7514 (December 12,1992); 16 Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee, 15 MLC 1551, 1555, MUP-6748 (March 17 20, 1989). The focus of a Section 10(a)(1) analysis is the effect of the employers conduct 18 on reasonable employees exercise of their Section 2 rights.

Contrast, Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (Dec. 12, 1992) (CERB held that union officials who drafted and distributed letters to make the public aware of concerns about certain working conditions were engaged in concerted, protected activity). Consequently, without more evidence, the Union and the individual Charging Parties are unable to satisfy their prima facie cases on this issue.

Andover School Committee, 40 MLC 1, 11, 5 MUP-12-2294 (July 2, 2013) (citing Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1597, MUP-7514 6 (December 22, 1992)).

Contrast, Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (Dec. 12, 1992) (CERB held that union officials who drafted and distributed letters to make the public aware of concerns about certain working conditions were engaged in concerted, protected activity). Consequently, without more evidence, the Union and the individual Charging Parties are unable to satisfy their prima facie cases on this issue.

Andover School Committee, 40 MLC 1, 11, 5 MUP-12-2294 (July 2, 2013) (citing Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1597, MUP-7514 6 (December 22, 1992)).

Contrast, Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1596, MUP-7514 (Dec. 12, 1992) (CERB held that union officials who drafted and distributed letters to make the public aware of concerns about certain working conditions were engaged in concerted, protected activity). Consequently, without more evidence, the Union and the individual Charging Parties are unable to satisfy their prima facie cases on this issue.

Andover School Committee, 40 MLC 1, 11, 5 MUP-12-2294 (July 2, 2013) (citing Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1597, MUP-7514 6 (December 22, 1992)).

Furthermore, the rulings that the investigator cites to, Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 91, MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 212, MUP-1448 (June 11, 1999); Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1595, MUP-7514 (December 12, 1992); Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee, 15 MLC 1551, 1555, MUP-6748 (March 20, 1989), involved employees bringing claims under their rights guaranteed under Section 2.

See, e.g., Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 91, MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000)(emphasis added); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 212, MUP-1448 (June 11, 1999); Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591, 1595, MUP-7514 (December 22,1992); Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee, 15 MLC 1551, 1555, MUP-6748 (March 20, 1989) and cases cited therein."