Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, Circumstantial factors may include: the timing of the adverse action in relation to the protected activity, Town of Somerset, 15 MLC 1523, 1529, MUP-6404 (March 9, 1989); the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 14 MLC 1743, 1749, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988); and the employer's divergence from longstanding practices, Town of Mashpee

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP1498 (June 4, 2001). Circumstantial factors may include: shifting and inconsistent protected activities. To be concerted, the evidence must demonstrate that the employee is acting with other employees, or on the authority of other employees, rather than acting out of self-interest. Town of Southborough, 21 MLC 1242, 1249, MUP-8521 (August 29, 1994).

City of Peabody, 28 MLC 284 (2002)(citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133 (1999) and Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001)). According to the CERB, there must be a significant detriment to [the workers] career, job benefits or salary. City of Boston, 2009 WL 1740195 at *6, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009).

Ex. 2) Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1 (2003) The record evidence establishes there was no ambiguity within the MOU, not in the understanding of the negotiators. (see Fact 7 and ftnt. 2, as well as Facts 18, 19, and 20) Conclusion The In-Person Investigation in this matter resulted in the issuance of the instant Complaint.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1, MUP-2630, MUP-2747 (August 19, 2003). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the Board concludes that no repudiation has occurred. City of Boston, 26 MLC 215, MUP-2081 (May 31, 2000).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, MUP-2630, 19 MUP-2747 (Aug. 19, 2003); City of Boston, 26 MLC at 217. 20 The Union argues that the parties not only established a meeting of the minds 21 when they negotiated the MOU, but they manifested assent to its terms when they 22 finalized it.

The Union thus argues that pursuant to Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001), the Section 10(a)(1) allegation is timely. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons.

The Union thus argues that pursuant to Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001), the Section 10(a)(1) allegation is timely. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons.

See, e.g., Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 158-59 (2001) (refusal to assign a corrections officer to a specialized unit in retaliation for protected activity was a continuing violation because it had the effect of punishing the employee on a day-to-day basis for having engaged in protected activity).

Vincent Hospital State Police Sterling Police Department Stockbridge Police Department Stoneham Police Department Stonehill College Stoughton Police Department Stow Police Department Sturbridge Police Department Sudbury Police Department Suffolk County Sheriff's Department Suffolk University Police Department Sunderland Police Department Sutton Police Department Swampscott Police Department Swansea Police Department Taunton Police Department Templeton

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 1155, 1159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (employer's conduct constituted a continuing violation where it punished a bargaining unit member on a day-to-day basis for engaging in concerted, protected activity). Likewise, Haggertys one-time employment contract from his first year of employment is long-expired, contains a limited discussion of his job duties, and does not bear on the instant proceedings.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259 (2002); Millis School Committee, 23 MLC 99, 100 (1996); Blue Hills Regional School Committee, reasons. violates 3 MLC 1613 (1977).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 11 27 MLC at 160; Quincy School MUP-10-6128 Complaint and Oraer of Dismissal (cont'd) The charging party bears the burden of proving that, Committee, 27 MLC at 92. not have taken the adverse but for the protected activity, the employer would 204, 214 (2002); action.

Weingarten, has 420 been U.S. 251 guided by the (1975): Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2480 (January 30, 2002) (citations omitted). A meeting is investigatory in nature if the employer's purpose is to investigate the conduct of an employee, and the interview is convened to elicit information from the employee a further decision or to support Massachusetts, 26 MLC 139, to impose 141, SUP-4301 (March discipline. 9, 2000).

Id. 384 Mass. at 565-566; Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). Here, Kumar has established the first two elements of a prima facie case of retaliation. She filed the Grievance on January 11, 2019, and the Committee was aware of the Grievance. In her Charge and at the in-person investigation, Kumar alleged ten discrete instances of retaliation. | address Kumars allegations serially.