See North Middlesex Regional Distr, Teachers Ass'n, 28 MLC at 163, citing Massachusetts Lottery Commission, 22 MLC (1996). The Department has not repudiated the MOU. 1519, 1522 On the contrary, the Department relicd on it in establishing paid details for the 2012 pcak scason.
See North Middlesex Regional Distr, Teachers at 163, citing Massachusetts Lottery Commission, 22 MLC The Department has not repudiate the MOU. 1519, 1522 On the contrary, the Department relied onit in establishing paid details for the 2012 peak scason. Fundamentally, it is the Departments position that by virtue of its reserved authority in the MOU, the Department alone determines whether it requires EPOs to fill paid details at Horseneck Beach.
and Municipal Employees, Local 507, Unit D82; 42 (66) between the Board of Higher Education and the Massachusetts State College Association/MTA/NEA; 837 838 (67) between the Board of Higher Education and the Association of Professional Administrators, MTA/NEA; fT 839 840 (68) between the Board of Higher Education and the American Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees, Local 1067/Council 93; and (69) between the Massachusetts State Lottery
Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, 22 MLC 1519, 1522 (1996). An individual employee has no standing to enforce a unions duty to bargain, because doing so would interfere with the union's general prerogative to decide how to respond to alleged bargaining violations. It would also interfere with the employer's natural and justified reliance on having one partner in the bargaining process rather than a multitude. See Graham _v.
See Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, 22 MLC 1519, 1522, SUPL-2579 (February 16, 1996), NAGE, 8 MLC 1484, SUPL-2166 (November 11, 1981), and Graham v. Quincy Food Service Employees Association & Hospital Library & Public Employees Union, 407 Mass. 601, 606 (1990). Consequently, I also dismiss Linehans claims that the Union violated Section 10(b)(2) or 10(b)(3) of Law because he has no standing to bring them.
Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, 22 MLC 1519, 1522 (1996). An individual employee has no standing to enforce a unions duty to bargain, because doing so would interfere with the union's general prerogative to decide how to respond to alleged bargaining violations. It would also interfere with the employer's natural and justified reliance on having one partner in the bargaining process rather than a multitude. Hospital See Graham _v.
Teachers Assn, 28 MLC at 163 (citing Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, 22 MLC 1519, 1522 (1996)). If the contract language is ambiguous, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) must examine applicable ? Donahue did not provide the reasoning behind his decision. Dismissal (con't.) MUPL-13-2864 bargaining history to determine whether the parties reached an agreement. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11 (2001).
Massachusetts State Lottery Commission , 22 MLC 1468, 1472 (1996); City of Boston, 8 MLC 1419, 1437-1438 (1981). Thanks you, and please call if you would like to discuss this MCC/gl case. Co The Commonwealth of Massachusetts fliddlesex Sheriffs fice Peter J. Koutoujian Sheriff 400 Mystic Avenue Medford, Massachusetts Phone (781) 960-2800 Fax (781) 960-2902 April 11, 2014 Meghan C. Cooper, Esq. Gary Nolan, Esq.
Massachusetts State Lottery Commission, 22 MLC 1519, 1522 (1996). If the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the provision at issue, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) will find that no repudiation has occurred. Suffolk County Sheriffs Department, 30 MLC 1, 6 (2003).