Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 1155, 1159 (2001). The statute of limitations is not tolled on a continuing violation theory if the alleged violation involves a discrete and finite event. Town of Raynham, 30 MLC 56 (2003). The demonstrative evidence in this case shows the Union was on notice that it could not attend a physical medical exam on September 22, 2009.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001).

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.

In the Matter of Suffolk County Sheriff's Department & AFSCME, the LRC held that the Sherriff's Department could unilaterally implement a policy banning all cell phone use at work because the managerial prerogative of ensuring jail officers were working distraction free so that they could respond to emergencies allowed outweighed the officers interest in using their cell phones at work. Suffolk Cnty.

Decision (contd) MUP-13-3085 Library, 384 at 565-66; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 160, MUP- 1498 (June 4, 2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC at 92. The Committee argues that it would have removed Ms.

Trustees of Forbes activity, the employer would the adverse Library, 384 at 565-66; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 160, MUP- 1498 (June 4, 2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC at 92. The Committee argues that it would have removed Ms. Pierces name from the faculty list, deleted her e-mail account from the User Directory and posted and filled the Wilbur School Paraprofessionals participation in ARB-12-2455. actions against Ms.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159 (2001).

See Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 8 2001) (employer's failure to consider employee for favorable and prestigious assignment 9 constituted adverse action); see also Town of Holbrook, 15 MLC at 1221 (sergeant's 10 permanent assignment to desk duty was punitive and constituted adverse action); see 11 also Boston City Hospital, 11 MLC at 1072 (an involuntary transfer to a less desirable 12 position constituted

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 29 MLC 63, 68 (2002). The relevance of the requested information must be determined by the circumstances that exist at the time the union makes the request, not by the circumstances that exist at the time an arbitrator finally vindicates the union's right to the requested information. City of Lynn, 27 MLC at 61, citing Providence and Mercy Hospitals v.

Compare, Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 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).

Id. at 565-566; Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP-1498 (June 4, 2001). Prima Facie Case The Union did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation because, assuming it has established the first three elements, the evidence does not establish that the Towns adverse actions against Fay were unlawfully motivated.