Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment, 30 MLC 14, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP-274 7 (August 19, 2003). If the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of an agreemen t, 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 CountySheriffsDepartment, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP2747 (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 CERB will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Id. Here, the Union argues that it came to an agreement with the Town to allow bargaining unit members to work paid details in Newton.
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 CountySheriffsDepartment, 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 CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 6 MLC 155, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).
Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 reasons Circumstantial factors may include: shifting and inconsistent MLC 1001, 1006, MUP-5656 for an employers action, Everett Housing Authority, 13 given for the adverse action, (June 4, 1986); the insubstantiality of the reasons SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988); the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 14 MLC 1743, 1749, activity.
Suffolk County SheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 160 (2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC 83. 92 (2000). The charging party bears the burden of proving that, but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Athol-Royalston Regional School Committee, 28 MLC 204, 214 (2002): Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211 (1999).
Suffolk CountySheriff'sDepartment, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP2747 (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.
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 CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). 12 Absent direct evidence of unlawful motivation, several factors may suggest unlawful 13 motivation, including the timing of the alleged discriminatory act in relation to the In so holding, we do not rely on the inference of knowledge that the Hearing Officer drew that Mountain knew about Haskins conduct because DiOrio and Webster were aware of it and shared their knowledge
Suffolk CountySheriffsDepartment, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). Finally, if the employer produces one or more lawful reasons for taking the adverse action against the employee, the charging party must establish that but for the protected activity, the employer would not have taken the adverse action. Id. The Employer does not dispute that Fimognari, engaged in protected, concerted activity.