See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001). i. Constructive Discharge Following the lead of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Department of Labor Relations has found a constructive discharge where the evidence demonstrates that the employer has made life so unbearable for the employee that the employees only alternative is to resign. See Dons Catering Service, 5 MLC 1179 (H.O. 1978); W.T.

Board of higher education and AFSCME, Council 93, Local 1067, AFL-CIO, 33 MLC 156, 158 (February 22, 2007) (citing Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003); City of Boston\Boston Public Library, 26 MLC 215, 216-217 (2000)).

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 63, 67 (2002). A public employer must have the flexibility to manage its enterprise. Efficiency of governmental operations cannot be sacrificed by compelling the public employer to submit to the negotiating process those core governmental decisions which only have a marginal impact on employees terms and conditions of employment . . .

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP- 2747 (August 19, 2003). If the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of an agreement, or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, then the Board will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Id.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 50 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, Decision (cont'd) 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 29 MLC 63, MUP-01-2979 (October 9, 2002) (citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 21 MLC at 1503). Without any initial showing of why the minutes pertaining to other bargaining units are necessary, I do not find that the Town had a duty to produce the information. 40 H.O.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 2001). 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, Circumstantial factors may include; the timing of the adverse action in relation to of Somerset, 15 MLC 1523, 1529, MUP-6404 (March 9, 22 the protected activity, Town 23 4989); the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, Commonwealth 16 H.O.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 2001). Circumstantial factors may include; the timing of the adverse action in relation to the protected activity, Town of Somerset, 1523, 15 MLC 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.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630, 2747, (August 19, 2003); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 18 MLC 1161, 1163, SUP-3356, 3439 (October 16, 1991). Here, the Union has not established probable cause to believe that the Committee violated Section 10(a)(5), and, derivatively, Section 10(a)(1) of the Law by repudiating an unambiguous settlement agreement.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003). If the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of an agreement, or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, then the Board will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Id. The Union alleged that the Committee repudiated the language of its 2010 Agreement by treating Teixeira disparately from similary situated employees.