(Testimony of Breen) 9 dozen times in Lynn, MA for two and a half years to try to straighten the insurance issue out but in the end, she just paid the $2,000 fine because she could not continue to keep going back to court and miss work. (Resp. Ex. 5) 27. Assistant Chief Major considered the Appellants answers vague and inconsistent, which he found problematic. He concluded that the facts were not believable.

Additionally, you requested a list of cases involving three specifically named City of Lynn police officers. In response to your request and upon payment of the estimated cost to be incurred, the Office provided you with copies of records responsive to your request. In an April 8, 2014 letter to you, the Office provided you with additional justification for the information that was redacted from the responsive records.

Vitali Law Offices 60 Andrew Street Lynn, MA 01901 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint - Lynn Water & Sewer Commission Dear Attorney Vitali: This office received a complaint from David Ellis, dated March 18, 2013, alleging that the Lynn Water & Sewer Commission (the "Commission"), of which he is a member, violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 1825.

City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Comm., 43 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 178 (1997) (citing School Comm. of Boston v. Boston 3 Teachers Union, Local 66, 378 Mass. 65, 71 (1979)). Courts examine managerial prerogative claims on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 181 (citing Burlington v. Labor Relations Comm., 390 Mass. 157, 164 (1983)).

Certainly, where police officers are doing work within the community, as part of their normal policing duties, at the designation and direction of the Chief of Police, public safety is involved. 5 849539v1 The Union rests principally on its analysis of the City of Lynn case, arguing that the preclusion of bargaining only occurs when there is a comparatively heavy countervailing policy interest at stake. City of Lynn, 43 Mass. App.

Citing City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 178 (1997), it claims that the decision to administer Narcan is not so comparatively heavy in relation to the effect on officers terms and conditions of employment, specifically workload and safety concerns, that bargaining must be prohibited.

City of Lynn, 408 Mass. 39, 41-42 (1990), the SJC held that the commission had acted outside the scope of its statutory authority by expressly allowing litigants to extend the deadline for appeal by filing a motion to rehear or reconsider. See Herrick v. Essex Regional Retirement Bd., 68 Mass. App.

City of Lynn, 23 MCSR 252 (2010), distinguishing Foley v. Boston Police Dept, 22 MCSR 54 (2009) and other cases cited.

City of Lynn, 25 MCSR 100 (2012) (addressing distinction between civil service reinstatement rights of recovered disability retiree and reinstatement rights under retirement law over which Commission does not have jurisdiction). There is a scriveners error on page 47 of the Decision.

See City of Lynn, 27 MLC 60, MUP-2236 and MUP-2237 (Dec. 1, 2000) (citing Higher Education Coordinating Council (HECC), 23 MLC at 268). The CERB has consistently held that information about terms and conditions of employment is presumptively relevant and necessary for a union to perform its statutory duties.

City of Lynn, 27 MLC 60, 61, MUP-2236, 2237 (December 12 1, 2000) Once a union has established that the requested information is relevant and reasonably necessary, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it has legitimate and substantial concerns about disclosure. Bristol County Sheriffs Department, 32 MLC at 79; Board of Higher Education, 26 MLC at 93.

Marys High School, Lynn, MA for the 2007-2008 school year The first contact is for Assistant Football Coach, which ran from September 7, 2007 until November 21, 2007. On this contract, [Ryan] Layton indicates that his address is 99 Glen Road, Wilmington, MA. The second contract is for Assistant Lacrosse Coach, which ran from April 2, 2008 until May 20, 2008.

Citing City of Lynn v. Labor Relations Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 172, 178 (1997), it claims that the decision to administer Narcan is not so comparatively heavy in relation to the effect on officers terms and conditions of employment, specifically workload and safety The Union further argues that the concerns, that bargaining must be prohibited.