Compare, Suffolk CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (Board finds continuing violation when employer's unlawful actions continued into period of limitations for filing a charge, and had the effect of punishing a unit member on a day-to-day basis for engaging in protected activity).
Suffolk CountySheriffsDepartment, 29 MLC 63, 68, MUP-01-2979 (October 9, 2002). On November 6, 2014, the Employer asked the Union how the requested information was relevant and reasonably necessary for the Union to perform its duties, pursuant to the 150E standard.
Suffolk CountySheriffDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001). Once the Employer has produced a legitimate reason for its actions, the burden shifts to the charging party to demonstrate that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2014 MLRC Lexis 51 (SUP-12-2357, September 26, 2014), citing, Trustees of Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commission, 384 Mass. 559 (1981).
Suffolk CountySheriffDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001). Once the Employer has produced a legitimate reason for its actions, the burden shifts to the charging party to demonstrate that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2014 MLRC Lexis 51 (SUP-12-2357, September 26, 2014), citing, Trustees of Forbes Library v. Labor Relations Commission, 384 Mass. 559 (1981).
Compare Suffolk CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001) (employer's refusal each day to place an employee in a specialized work assignment had the effect of punishing him on day-to-day basis for engaging in concerted, protected activity).
See Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment, 29 MLC 63, 66 (2002), citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor Relations Commission, 404 Mass. 124, 127 (1989). To establish a violation of the Law, the 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 Sheriff'sDepartment, 28 MLC at 295. The Union alleges that the Town engaged in direct dealing when it issued Newton a retroactive payment and directly deposited that sum into her personal bank account after advising the Union that it agreed that the parties had reached impasse and that it would therefore implement its last and best final offer.
See Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment , 29 MLC 63, 66 (2002), citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor Relations Commission, 404 Mass. 124, 127 (1989). The existing conditions of employment may be established under the collective bargaining agreement, or by reference to an established past practice. MLC Town of Dedham, 5 MLC 1935 (1978); City of Everett, 1836, 1839 (1978), citing Town of East Bridgewater, 4 2 MLC 1471 (1976).
See Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment , 29 MLC 63, 66 (2002), citing Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Labor Relations Commission, 404 Mass. 124, 127 (1989). The existing conditions of employment may be established under the collective bargaining agreement, or by reference to an established past practice. Town of Dedham, 5 MLC 1836, 1839 (1978), citing Town of East Bridgewater, 4 MLC 1935 (1978); City of Everett, 2 MLC 1471 (1976).
City of Holyoke, 38 MLC of Carver, at 156; Town 29, 48 35 MLC MUP-03-3894 (June 30, 2008) (citing Town of Brookfield, 28 MLC at 327-28); Suffolk CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC factors may suggest 155, 159, MUP-1498 motivation, unlawful such as: the (June 4, 2001).
Tr V 4, pp 68 70. 25 Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 160 (2001), Commonwealth of Mass, 14 MLC 1743, 1748 (1988). Buisson, in a radical departure from her previous years evaluation of King, rated him marginal or unsatisfactory, as opposed to very good and made negative comments under categories she rated satisfoactory.