Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 26 MLC 165, 168 (2000) (citing City ofQuincy, 17 MLC 1603 (1991)); Massachusetts Board of Regents of Higher Education, 10 MLC 1196 (1983). A party that fails to implement an unambiguous provision of a collective bargaining agreement repudiates the agreement's terms in violation of the Law. City of Melrose, 22 MLC 1209, 1217 (1995).
In City ofQuincy and Nina Pattison, 15 MLC 1340, MUP-6037 (January 24, 1989), aff'd sub nom. Pattison v. Labor Relations Commission, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 9 (1991), Pattison argued that her union had breached its duty of fair representation to her by refusing to file a grievance on her behalf, and thus argued that she should be permitted to stand in her union's shoes to file a Section 10(a)(5) charge.
City ofQuincy, 17 MLC 1603 (1991), Mass. Bd of Regents of Higher Education, 10 MLSC 1196 (1983). To establish that the College repudiated an agreement, the Union must show that the College deliberately refused to abide by the agreement. See, Boston School Committee, 22 MLC 1365, 1375 (1996); City ofQuincy, 17 MLC 1603, 1608 (1991).
Allegations of Violation of Section 10 (a) (5): Refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the exclusive representative as required in section six; The Commission has held that the duty to bargain in good faith includes the duty to comply with collectively bargained agreements and to implement settlement agreements reached during the process of resolving grievances, City ofQuincy, 17 MLC Regents of Higher Education, 10 MLSC 1196 (1983). an
Bd of Regents of Higher Education, implement settlement City ofQuincy, 17 MLC 10 MLSC 1196 (1983). To establish that the College repudiated an agreement, the Union must show that the College deliberately refused to abide by the agreement. See, Boston School Committee, 22 MLC 1365, 1375 (1996); City of Quincy, 17 MLC 1603, 1608 (1991).
City ofQuincy, 24 MCSR 497 (2011) citing Flynn v. Civil Serv. Comm'n., 15 Mass.App.Ct. 206, rev. 8 See, n 7. 14 den., 388 Mass. 1105 (1983). At issue in Phillips were specific questions. However, in the instant appeal, the Appellant was scored poorly by the interviewers on his responses to most of the questions in his interview. The bulk of Mr.
City ofQuincy, 27 MCSR 322 (2014) (USERRA did not conflict with requirements for timely claiming veterans status and process for issuance of certifications); Amaral v. City of Fall River, 22 MCSR 653, 659 fnt.6 (2009) (relationship of USERRA rights to requirements for layoffs); Sullivan v.
Boston School Committee, 22 MLC 1365, 1375, MUP-8125 (January 9, 1996); City ofQuincy, 17 MLC 1603, 1608, MUP-6710 (March 20, 1991). The parties dispute whether there was an oral agreement in place that permitted the BPHC to consider external candidates for Sergeant positions and allow those candidates to sit for the promotional exam.