Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 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 County Sheriffs Department, 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.

Involuntary deductions from employees' paychecks (Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 253 (2002); Millis School Committee, 23 MLC 99 (1996). NAGE asks this Hearing Officer to not abruptly end union rights in the captioned matter.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 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 of Athol, 25 MLC 204, 214 (2002); Town at 211.

In the case of employees of the Suffolk county sheriff's department, employer shall mean the sheriff of Suffolk county or any individual who is designated by him to represent him or act in his interest in dealing with such employees. In the case of personal care attendants as defined in section 70 of chapter 118E, the employer shall mean the PCA quality home care workforce council or its designee as defined in section 71 of chapter 118E.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 21 MLC 1499, 1503 (1994).44 When a union asks for information that is not presumptively relevant, the union's showing must be more than a mere concoction of some general theory explaining how the information would be useful to the union.dd Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 53, 69 (2002), citing, San Diego Newspaper Guild, Local 95 of the Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO, CLC v.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 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 at 211.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 Circumstantial factors may include: shifting and inconsistent reasons for an employers action, Everett Housing Authority, 13 MLC 1001, 1006, MUP-5656 (June 4, 1986); the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 14 MLC 1743, 1749, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988); the timing of the adverse action in relation to the protected activity.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, Committee, 27 MLC at 92. 27 MLC at 160; Quincy School 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, MUP- 2279 (January 14, 2002); Town of Athol, 25 MLC 208, 211, MUP-1448 (June 11, 1999).

See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 21 MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). Bachs letter to Crowley tells her to cease and desist from 22 numerous actions that Bach alleges had interfered with the Association. The issue, 23 however, is whether the School Committee, or its agents, knew that the portion of the 32 H.O.

See Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 21 MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). Bachs letter to Crowley tells her to cease and desist from 22 numerous actions that Bach alleges had interfered with the Association. The issue, 23 however, is whether the School Committee, or its agents, knew that the portion of the 32 H.O.

Trustees of Forbes Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, School Committee, 27 MLC at 92. 27 MLC at 160; Quincy The Union contends that, but for the Whites animus against Horsmans protected activities, the Employer would not have reprimanded him on April 16, 2010 nor terminated his employment in August of 2010.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001). Circumstantial factors may include: the timing of the adverse action in relation to the protected activity, the insubstantiality of the reasons given for the adverse action, the employers divergence from long-standing practice, or expressions of unlawful animus.