City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009); Town of Carver, 35 MLC 29, 47 MUP-03-3894 (June 30, 2008)(citing Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 92, MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000)). Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, the employee may rebut it by producing evidence that the adverse action taken against the employee was motivated by a legitimate reason.

See City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009) (defining adverse action as adverse personnel action taken by employer). The Investigator dismissed the charge, however, because he found no evidence to support the fourth element of a prima facie violation of Section 10(a)(3), i.e., that her removal from the proctor list was motivated by a desire to penalize or discourage Dababnehs union or protected concerted activities.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83, 92, MUP-1986 (December 29, 2000); Trustees of Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commission, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981). A charging party may establish unlawful motivation through direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. City of Holyoke, at 156.

Cityof Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291 (2009); citing City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009). The Board has also decided that an employers action that is punitive may fall within the parameters of adverse action. See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001). i.

The Division of Labor Relations has reviewed this defense before in City of Holyoke and Local 793, 7 MLC 2128 (1981). Back in 1980, the voters of the Commonwealth passed Proposition 2 , modelled after Californias Proposition 13, which dramatically curtailed property tax revenues throughout all municipalities in the State.

City of Holyoke G & E Dept, 21 MCSR 287(2008), subsequent decision, 22 MCSR 137 (2009) Similarly, the Appellants are mistaken to contend that Mr. OLoughlin was the only candidate qualified to apply because he was the only employee who was in the next lower title (SMEO) to a Working Forman, presumably in reliance on G.L.c.31, 15 regarding provisional promotions. That provision does not apply here to a permanent promotion in the labor service.

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)). The mere assignment of additional responsibilities, though possibly inconvenient or even undesirable, does not constitute an adverse employment action unless it materially disadvantages the plaintiff in some way. MacCormack v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009).7 No Concerted, Protected Activity The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) has decided that an employee's activity is protected if it focuses on generally applicable terms and conditions of employment that impact the collective bargaining unit as a whole.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156 (2009) (citing Town of Dracut, 25 MLC 131, 133 (1999)). The mere assignment of additional responsibilities, though possibly inconvenient or even undesirable, does not constitute an adverse employment action unless it materially disadvantages the plaintiff in some way. MacCormack v.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 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).

City of Holyoke 39 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009); City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009). Once the charging party establishes 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 Pe a) taken the adverse action.

City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-05-4503 (January 9, 2009). Once the charging party establishes a prima facie case, if the employer provides lawful reasons for the alleged discriminatory conduct, the charging party must then prove that but for 7 Dismissal (Contd) SUP-19-7722 and SUP-20-7858 the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action.