Town ofPlymouth, 26 MLC 220, 223, MUP-1465 (June 7, 2000). I find that the circumstances here satisfy these criteria, and therefore conclude that there is no probable cause to believe that the City violated the Law by implementing the policy prior to completing impact negotiations. The ongoing pandemic is beyond the control of the City.
Town ofPlymouth, 26 MLC 220, *6 (2000) (Therefore, it is illogical for the Town to argue that circumstances beyond its control required it to implement the Policy before reaching resolution or impasse when the Town did not implement the Policy until eleven months after the deadline established by the federal rule had passed.)
Town ofPlymouth, 33 MLC 23, 25 (2006); Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555 (1994), aff'd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. (1997). App. Ct. 1113 City of Boston, 40 MLC 126, 131 (H.O., 2013). The collective jurisdiction include[s] bargaining agreement unambiguously those individuals employed perform the duties of paras... provides by the Committee who that the Unions now or hereafter Stipulation, 10.
See, Town ofPlymouth, 26 6 The Association has not alleged that the Receiver had any decisional bargaining obligations here. 7 Because the Receiver did not engage in any impact bargaining prior to implementing the changes at issue here, I need not decide whether she would be required to impact bargain to resolution or impasse before implementing changes consistent with the Turnaround Plan, or whether Chapter 150E and Section .1 K would allow for
Town ofPlymouth, 41 MLC 211 (2015). Bargaining unit work is work that has traditionally been exclusively performed by the bargaining unit. Massachusetts, 41 MLC Commonwealth of 136 (2014). If the work in question has traditionally been shared by bargaining unit members and non-unit employees, the union must show that bargaining unit members traditionally performed an ascertainable percentage of the work. Id.
See also Town ofPlymouth, 37 MLC 164, 165 (2010) (In cases involving allegations of unilateral change ... the period of limitations begins running when a charging party receives clear notice of the change, a date that does not necessarily coincide with the date the change is actually implemented.) In 2008, the Divisions rescission of the alternative work schedule policy was the subject of a charge of prohibited practices by NAGE and SEIU.
Town ofPlymouth, 26 MLC 220, 223, MUP-1465 (June 7, 2000). I find that the circumstances here satisfy these criteria, and therefore conclude that there is no probable cause to believe that the City violated the Law by implementing the revised policy prior to completing impact negotiations. The ongoing pandemic is beyond the control of the City.
Town ofPlymouth, 26 MLC 220, *6 (2000) (Therefore, it is illogical for the Town to argue that circumstances beyond its control required it to implement the Policy before reaching resolution or impasse when the Town did not implement the Policy until eleven months after the deadline established by the federal rule had passed.)
See Town ofPlymouth, 26 MLC 224, 234, MUP-1465 (June 7, 2000) (employers setting a deadline for complying with a federal drug testing rule that was ten months after the date mandated by the federal rule rendered illogical the Towns argument that circumstances beyond its control required it to implement the policy before reaching resolution or impasse).
Bristol County Sheriffs Department, 31 MLC 6, 21 (2004); North Middlesex School Committee, 28 MLC 160, 162 (2001); Woburn School Committee, MUP-15-4575 (September 8, 2016), page 8; Town ofPlymouth, MUP-12-2050 (July 29, 2013), pages 10-11. The implication is that the Union had somehow acted improperly by relying in good faith upon its properly negotiated ground rules.