See also City of Peabody, 28 MLC 281, 284 '* The forensic analysis determined that the activity occurred at approximately 9:00 a.m., at which time, only Officers Coronite, OConnor and Taylor were working at the North Gate.

Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC at 91 (citing City of Peabody, 25 MLC 191, 193, MUP-9861 (May 20, 1999)). Proof of illegal employer motivation is not required. Id. (citing City of Boston, 8 MLC 1281, 1284, MUP3891 (August 17, 1981)).

City of Peabody, 23 MCSR 363 (2010)(ordered adjustment to seniority date of police sergeants deprived of temporary appointments through unlawful out-of-grade assignments so that the period for which they were eligible for such appointments [there, eight months] would be added to their seniority date if and when they were later appointed as Lieutenant in the future).

See City of Peabody, 9 MLC 1447 (1982). In addition, the change must impact a mandatory subject of bargaining. See College of Billerica, 8 MLC 1957 (1982). This Department has held that work assignment, job duties and the transfer of unit work to non-unit personnel are mandatory subjects of bargaining. See College of Danvers, 3 MLC 1559 (1977).

The Union bears the burden of proving that a change to terms and conditions of employment actually occurred. cannot be held to have conditions City of Peabody, violated of employment. M.G.L. Duxbury c. 9 MLC 150E School 1447 (1982). if it does Committee, 25 The employer not change underlying MLC 24 22, (1998). Updating of the Administrative Assistant RL16 job description did not alter terms and conditions of employment.

Kulak, Esq. 40 Lowell Street: Suite 14 Peabody, MA 01960 (978) 532-2060 dan.kulak@verizon.net Commissioner: Christopher C.

City of Fitchburg, 22 MLC 1286, 1292 (1995); City of Peabody, 25 MLC 191, 193 (1999). The union has the burden to demonstrate a violation of Section 10(a)(1) by a preponderance of the evidence. Town of Winchester, 19 MLC 1591 (1992). The MMEA has not and cannot meet its burden to demonstrate interference, restraint, or coercion in this case.

See, e.g., City of Peabody, MUP-09-5739 (H.O. 2/5/2003). As reviewed in detail in the Section III (FACTS) above, the practice, whether the Citys managers chose to notice the MMEA employees wearing jeans on Fridays, was nonetheless well established and reaffirmed with each contract. In addition, it is important to note the evidence of intentional ignorance. For example, Ms. Elliss 2004 interaction with Ms. Monfalcone demonstrates that Ms.

See, e.g., City of Peabody, MUP-09-5739 (H.O. 2/5/2003). As reviewed in detail in the Section III (FACTS) above, the practice, whether the Citys managers chose to notice the MMEA employees wearing jeans on Fridays, was nonetheless well established and reaffirmed with each contract. In addition, it is important to note the evidence of intentional ignorance. For example, Ms. Elliss 2004 interaction with Ms. Monfalcone demonstrates that Ms.

City of Peabody, 25 MLC 191, 193 (1999). It is well-established that the filing and processing of grievances constitutes protected activity under Section 2 of the Law. City of Somerville, 23 MLC 11, 14 (1996); Massasoit Greyhound Association, 23 MLC 142, 146 (1996); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361 (1985); Boston City Hospital, 11 MLC 1065 (1984); Town of Halifax, 1 MLC 1486 (1975).

City of Peabody, 25 MLC 191, 193, MUP-9861 (May 21, 1999). A finding of illegal motivation is not required in a Section 10(a)(1) case. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 26 MLC 218, 219, SUP-4514 (May 31,2000). Rather, the focus of a Section 10(a)(1) inquiry is the effect of the employers conduct on a reasonable employee rather than whether there is actual interference with employee rights. Id.

City of Peabody, 9 MLC at 1452. A change in the employees' job duties is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No. SUP-4345 (Slip Op. June 29, 2001); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 27 MLC 70, 72 (2000); Town of East Longmeadow, 25 MLC 128, 129 (1999).

City of Peabody, 17 MCSR 35, 36 (2004) (upholding termination stating that [c]omplying with simple directives and refraining from theft of others personal items are bare minimum attributes that any Appointing Authority should be able to reasonably expect from its employees.); Peltier v.