Relations Commission, Section 133, 149 (2006) (citing City of Somerville v.

City of Somerville. 4 MLC 1307. 1311 (1977) (union waives right to bargain by inaction when it does not make any demand for collective bargaining). Because the Union had ample opportunity to pursue collective bargaining concerning this issue, but evidently chose not to, it cannot now claim a failure by the Collaborative to bargain. See id.

.: C-21-121 MassDOT, Respondent DECISION CITY OF SOMERVILLE, Respondent Following a pre-hearing conference that I conducted on August 3, 2021, I assigned the above-captioned reclassification appeal to the Civil Service Commissions General Counsel, attorney Robert L. Quinan, Jr., for adjudication purposes and he then proceeded to conduct a hearing on behalf of the Commission on October 21, 2021.

In City of Somerville, 1 MLC 1234,1236, CAS-2008 (January 7, 1975), the CERB explained that a CAS petition is not an appropriate vehicle for altering a clearly established unit structure that is incorporated in a written collective bargaining agreement.

City of Somerville, 23 MLC 256, 259 (1997); City of Boston, I 0 MLC 1539, 1541 (1984).

See, e.g., City of Medford, MUP-13-2687 (2015); City of Somerville, 23 MLC ii (1996). Whether the individual or entity issuing the reprimand actually has authority to discipline the employees is irrelevant to determining whether the reprimand is, in fact, "adverse action." CERB has not limited (a)(3) charges about reprimands only to appointing authorities. Regardless, the Board of Selectmen are within the President's chain of command.

Under these circumstances, the Letter is distinguishable from the written reprimands that were held to constitute adverse action in the cases cited by the Union in its request for review See City of Medford, 41 MLC 379, MUP-13-2687 (June 29, 2015) (Fire Chief's written warning to union president threatening future discipline constituted adverse action); City of Somerville, 23 MLC 11, MUP-8450 (June 6, 1996)(finding unlawful retaliation based warnings

City of Somerville, 44 MLC 123, 125, MUP-16-5023 (January 30, 2018). 3 The key issue in the case below was whether the method of calculating mileage 4 set forth in the May 9, 2016 memo constituted a bargainable change. The Union argued 5 that it did because it deviated from the door to door reimbursements its members had 6 been receiving.

City of Somerville, 44 MLC Accordingly, MOSES argument that the door to door formula is binding on the Commonwealth must fail in the face of the clear, explicit provisions of Section 11.1 that provide to the contrary. In its efforts to correct mileage reimbursements, however, the Commonwealth has implemented a change that also conflicts with Section 11.1.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 TEL: (617) 7272200 www.mass.gov/ago MAURA HEALEY ATTORNEY GENERAL June 1, 2016 OML 201671 David Shapiro Assistant City Solicitor Somerville Law Department 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Shapiro; This office received a complaint from Christopher Poteet on February 23, 2016, alleging that

Rourke, Chairman Somerville Retirement Board City Hall Annex 50 Evergreen Avenue Somerville, MA 02145 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Mr. Rourke: Our office received a complaint from John Memory on September 22, 2010, alleging that a member of the Somerville Retirement Board (the "Board") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.

Special Counsel Law Department Somerville City Hall 93 Highland Avenue Somerville, MA 02143 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney McGettigan: This office received a complaint from Claudia Murrow on July 7 alleging that the Somerville Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.1 The complaint was originally filed with the Authority on May 26; and you responded, on behalf of the Authority, by letter