To achieve a meeting of the minds, the parties must manifest Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003). When confronted with an allegation of a refusal to bargain in good faith, the Division of Labor Relations looks at the totality of the circumstances in determining the Charges efficacy.

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.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001); Town of Holbrook, 15 MLC 1221 (1988). 18 2. The Fire Chief Issued Written Warnings to O'Brien and Beckwith to Penalize Them for Their Protected Conduct The final prong of the test, unlawful motivation, can be proved with direct or indirect evidence. See e.g., Lawrence School Committee, 33 MLC 90, 97 (2006).

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (citing ; Town of Holbrook, 15 MLC 1221, MLC 1083, MUP-3922 1225, MUP-6344 (Nov. 3, 1988)); compare Billerica School Committee, 8 (June 9, 1981) (employer unlawfully reprimanded a union official for his "error in judgment" after meeting with the employer about a grievance meeting and advising other employees to disregard the employer's instructions based on that union official's

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (citing ; Town of Holbrook, 15 MLC 1221, 1225, MUP-6344 (Nov. 3, 1988)); compare Billerica School Committee, 8 MLC 1083, MUP-3922 (June 9, 1981) (employer unlawfully reprimanded a union official for his error in judgment" after meeting with the employer about a grievance meeting and advising other employees to disregard the employer's instructions based on that union official's

The Union and Charging Parties argued during the investigation that this meeting violated Boutins Weingarten rights. 2 Unlike the Unions charge, the individuals charges did not specify that the Section 10(a)(1) allegation was derivative. 1 See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30,2002) (In determining whether an employer has unlawfully denied union representation to an employee during an investigatory interview

Decision MUP-20-7800 et al. 1 additional basis to infer, under the fourth part of the prima facie analysis, that the discipline 2 was unlawfully motivated. 3 Finally, unlawful motivation may be inferred from evidence that the employer 4 treated the Charging Parties differently than it treated other similarly-situated employees. 5 See, e.g., Town of Carver, 35 MLC at 50-51; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 6 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

The Union and Charging Parties argued during the investigation that this meeting violated Boutins Weingarten rights. 2 Unlike the Unions charge, the individuals charges did not specify that the Section 10(a)(1) allegation was derivative. 1 See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30,2002) (In determining whether an employer has unlawfully denied union representation to an employee during an investigatory interview

Decision MUP-20-7800 et al. 1 additional basis to infer, under the fourth part of the prima facie analysis, that the discipline 2 was unlawfully motivated. 3 Finally, unlawful motivation may be inferred from evidence that the employer 4 treated the Charging Parties differently than it treated other similarly-situated employees. 5 See, e.g., Town of Carver, 35 MLC at 50-51; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 6 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

The Union and Charging Parties argued during the investigation that this meeting violated Boutins Weingarten rights. 2 Unlike the Unions charge, the individuals charges did not specify that the Section 10(a)(1) allegation was derivative. 1 See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (January 30,2002) (In determining whether an employer has unlawfully denied union representation to an employee during an investigatory interview

Decision MUP-20-7800 et al. 1 additional basis to infer, under the fourth part of the prima facie analysis, that the discipline 2 was unlawfully motivated. 3 Finally, unlawful motivation may be inferred from evidence that the employer 4 treated the Charging Parties differently than it treated other similarly-situated employees. 5 See, e.g., Town of Carver, 35 MLC at 50-51; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 6 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

See, Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, http://sll.gvpi.net/document. php ?id=labor: 00253 38-0000000&type=hitlist&num=3 5 3/30/2017 Social Law Library Page 3 of 4 159 (2001) (employer's conduct constituted a continuing violation, because those actions had the effect of punishing a bargaining unit member on a dayto-day basis for engaging in concerted, protected activity).

Community Corrections; Kim Larson, Probation Officer, Probation Department, Barnstable District Court; Elzy Tubbs, Probation Officer, Massachusetts Trial Court; Jennifer Ellis, Patrol Officer, Town of Barnstable; Justin Waskiewicz, Patrol Officer, Town of Barnstable; Thomas Shannon, Detective Lieutenant, Massachusetts State Police, Drug Diversion Unit (retired in 2011 after his involvement in this case); William Sweeney, Director of Human Resources, Suffolk

See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (employer's continuing failure to assign employee to an emergency response team in retaliation for engaging in protected, concerted activity constituted a continuing violation because the employer's conduct had the effect of punishing a bargaining unit member on a day-to-day basis for engaging in the concerted, protected activity).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 15 2001). 16 employers action, Everett Housing Authority, 13 MLC 1001, 1006, MUP-5656 (June 4, 17 1986); the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, Commonwealth of 18 Massachusetts, 14 MLC 1743, 1749, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988); the timing of the adverse 19 action in relation to the protected activity; Town of Somerset, 15 MLC 1523, 1529, MUP- 20 6404 (March

See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (employer's continuing failure to assign employee to an emergency response team in retaliation for engaging in protected, concerted activity constituted a continuing violation because the employer's conduct had the effect of punishing a bargaining unit member on a day-to-day basis for engaging in the concerted, protected activity).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 15 2001). 16 employers action, Everett Housing Authority, 13 MLC 1001, 1006, MUP-5656 (June 4, 17 1986); the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, Commonwealth of 18 Massachusetts, 14 MLC 1743, 1749, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988); the timing of the adverse 19 action in relation to the protected activity; Town of Somerset, 15 MLC 1523, 1529, MUP- 20 6404 (March