Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP1498 (June 4, 2001). 3 Complaint and Partial Dismissal (cont.) SUP-22-9319 In its charge, the Union alleged that the Commonwealth independently violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Law when it issued Conille a written reprimand. The facts of this case present probable cause to believe that the Commonwealth violated Section 10(a)(3) and 10(a)(4), as the Union alleged and as pleaded in the Complaint.

See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 14 Oakes contends that the term days in Article 3 of the 2015-2018 CBA refers to business days and that his grievance was timely filed.

See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 29 MLC 63, 66 (2002), citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor To establish a violation of the Law, the Relations Commission, 404 Mass. 124, 127 (1989). 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 Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259 (2002). Millis School Committee, 23 MLC 99, 100(1996); Blue Hills Regional School Committee, 3 MLC 1613 (1977). Direct dealing is impermissible as it has a twofold impact; 1) it violates the exclusivity of the Union to speak for its members and 2) it undermines the employees belief that the union actually possesses the power of exclusivity representation to which the statute entitled it.

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 at 211.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department and In addition, the Union is regularly provided with organizational charts and employee lists detailing the existence of the seven Asset Protection regions, seven Asset Protection assistant regional managers, and seven Asset Protection supervisors.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department and AFSME, Council 93,29 MLC 21, 34-35 (2002). In addition, the Union is regularly provided with organizational charts and employee lists detailing the existence of the seven Asset Protection regions, seven Asset Protection assistant regional managers, and seven Asset Protection supervisors.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1 (2003); City of Boston, 26 MLC at 217. The June 2019 agreement does not include ambiguous language. The parties agreed to a process for implementing mandatory overtime. There are no limits imposed on how many times an employee may be called to perform mandatory overtime in a three-month period.

Board of Higher Education and AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1067, AFL-CIO, 33 MLC 156, 158 (February 22, 2007) (citing Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003); City of Boston/Boston Public Library, 26 MLC 215, 216-217 (2000)). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement, or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the [DLR] will conclude that no repudiation has occurred.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 63, 69 (2002). In cases where an employer claims that the release of personnel files are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the personnel files exemption to the public records law, the employer must harmonize its statutory obligations and provide exempt information through the use of certain judicially-approved safeguards on disclosure. Association, 2009 WL 4005279, *5 (2009). City of Newton v.

Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Trial Court, 33 MLC at 185-186 (quoting Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 53, 69 (2002), citing, San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local 95 of the Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC v. NLRB, 548 F.2d 863 (9" Cir. 1977)).