Massachusetts PortAuthority, 36 MLC 5, 13 (2009) (citing Town of Hudson, 25 MLC at 148); AshburnhamWestminster Regional School District, 29 MLC 191, 194 (2003). The Association argues that the City cannot meet its burden of establishing that the Association had any knowledge or notice of the change to traffic vests because the Department never gave the Association sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to bargain over the change.
The DPS advised another building inspector that his new permanent work location was located in Millbury, MA, and that he was expected to continue reporting to Massachusetts PortAuthority, located in Boston, MA until further notice. On May 13, 2016, the Union and the Commonwealth met to discuss the April 22 letter and the two May 12 grievances.
Director, Pioneer Institute Chancellor, University of Massachusetts, Boston President, NAACP Boston Chapter President & CEO, Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts President & CEO, AccuRounds President, Environmental League of Massachusetts State Representative, Suffolk 7th District, MA House State Representative, 3rd Essex District, MA House Vice President for Programs, The Boston Foundation President, Kendall Square Association CEO, Massachusetts
Massachusetts PortAuthority, 36 MLC 5, 13, UP- 5 04-2669 (June 30, 2009). 6 circumstances it can be said that the employers conduct has progressed to a point that 7 a demand to bargain would be fruitless. Town of Hudson, 25 MLC 143, 148, MUP-1714 8 (April 1, 1999); Holliston School Committee, 23 MLC 211, 212-213, MUP-1300 (March 9 27, 1997) (citing Scituate School Committee, 9 MLC 1010, 1012, MUP-4563 (May 27, 10 1982).
See Massachusetts PortAuthority, 36 MLC 5, 12 (2009) and cases cited therein. The City cannot meet that burden. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the arbitrator was authorizing the City to unilaterally enact a 21 Ibid, p. 137 32 new promotional process. Indeed, there is no language expressly or by necessary implication suggesting that the City was absolved of its mandatory obligation to bargain.
See Massachusetts PortAuthority, 36 MLC 5, 12 (2009) and cases cited therein. The City cannot meet that burden. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the arbitrator was authorizing the City to unilaterally enact a 21 Ibid, p. 137 32 new promotional process. Indeed, there is no language expressly or by necessary implication suggesting that the City was absolved of its mandatory obligation to bargain.
See Massachusetts PortAuthority, 36 MLC 5, 12 (2009) and cases cited therein. The City cannot meet that burden. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the arbitrator was authorizing the City to unilaterally enact a 21 Ibid, p. 137 32 new promotional process. Indeed, there is no language expressly or by necessary implication suggesting that the City was absolved of its mandatory obligation to bargain.