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.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6, MUP-2630 and MUP-2747 (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.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1 (2003). Here, there can be no doubt that the parties have a collective bargaining agreement providing for continuous plant operation, premium pay differentials, equitable distribution of overtime, and for certain positions in the bargaining unit. The parties agreement is buttressed by years of clear, unequivocal past practices accepted by both parties to the agreement.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253, 259, MUP-2840 (Jan. 30, 2000) (citing Service Employees International Union. AFL-CIO. Local 509 v. Labor Relations Commission, 431 Mass. 710, 715 (2000)). Second, direct dealing undermines employees' belief that the union actually possesses the power of exclusive representation to which the statute entitles it. ~at 259.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 28 MLC 253, 259 (2002) (citing SEIU, Local 509, 431 Mass. at 710)). Second, direct dealing 1] undermines the employees belief that the union actually possesses the power of exclusive representation to which the statute entitles it.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1 (2003); I & R Mechanical, Inc. v. Hazelton Mfg. Co., 62 Mass. App. Ct. 452, 455 (2004); Vieira v. First American Title Ins. Co., 668 F. Supp. 2d 282, 288 (D. Mass. 2009).

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 7! of chapter | 18E.

In the case of employees of the Suffolk county sheriffs 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 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 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.

Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1 (2003). This evidence includes the Article 11.1.A and C, the 1982 letter from the Deputy 56 Day 5: p. 30, ln. 8-12. Page 13 Commissioner to the Internal Revenue Service, HRD General Counsels admission and arbitrator finding in 2003, as well as the uninterrupted practice and virtually all testimony. (Jt. Exh. 1A, 1B; Union Exh. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.) 3.

Trustees of Forbes Library, 384 at 565-566; Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 160 (2001); Quincy School Committee, 27 MLC at 92. The same elements of proof apply to alleged violations of both Section 10(a)(3) and Section 10(a)(4) of the Law. City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, 290, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009). First, the CERB determines whether the charging party has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, 27 MLC 155, 159, MUP- Finally, if the employer produces one or more lawful reasons for 31 The Union also argues that Callahans refusal to allow Menino to act as Gracias union steward, as described below, is further evidence of the Citys improper motivation.