Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11 (2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73 (2000)).

Belchertown MA 01007 413-323-0448 EMPLOYER'S LABOR RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE 8. Name Russell Dupere, Esq. 9. Telephone Number 413-562-3300 10,11,12,13. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP 14. FAX code) 94 North Elm St., Suite 307 Westfield MA 01085 413-562-3301 Number 15. E-mail address russell@duperelawoffices.info 16. Firm/Organization Name Dupere Law Offices EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION (if any) 17. Name 18.

Hastings Thomas Hastings 11 Jeffery Lane Belchertown, MA 01007 413-461-8405 tfhast(@gmail.com Jennifer Maldonado-Ong, Esq. Hearing Officer Department of Labor Relations Charles F. Hurley Building 19 Staniford Street, 1' Floor Boston, MA 02114 (617) 626-5460 Jen.Maldonado-Ong@massmail.state.ma.us May 31, 2018 Dear Jennifer Maldonado-Ong, Esq., Attached please find my signed Charge of Prohibited Practice M.G.L. c. 150E form.

Hastings 11 Jeffrey Lane Belchertown, MA 01007 RE: SUPL-18-6661, Professional Staff Association Dear Mr. Coles & Mr.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11, SUP-4448 (June 15, 2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73, MUP-2397 (December 21, 2000)). It is undisputed that the parties did not discuss changes in the out-of-pocket employee maximum contributions during the negotiations which led to the agreement on the 2015 MOA.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8. 11, SUP-4345 (June 29, 2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73, MUP-2397 (January 3, 2000)). Here, NAGE asserts that the Commonwealth repudiated the Incentive MOA when it refused to pay the $5.00 differential, which was referenced in Section 1(a) of the MOA, to its unit members at Milford and Norfolk.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8. 11, SUP-4345 (June 29, 2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73, MUP-2397 (January 3, 2000)). Here, NAGE claimed that the Commonwealth repudiated the Incentive MOA when it refused to pay the differentials referenced in Paragraph 1 of the MOA, to its unit members employed at the State Laboratories. In support of its claim, NAGE argued that the Incentive MOA is unambiguous.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11 (2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73 (2000)). Here the Federation alleges that the City has repudiated Article 18, Section 12 of the parties collective bargaining agreement by transferring bargaining unit work when it assigned some of Captain Ciccolos duties to Cohen.

See Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73 (2000); City of Lawrence, 27 MLC 57 (2000); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 27 MLC 87, 89 (2000).

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11, SUP-4345 (June 29, 2001) (citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73, MUP-2397 (January 3, 2000)). September 9 Email for McCormack Here, the Union argues that an email created a separate agreement, which the Employer repudiated by allowing and then denying McCormack leave. The email the Union cites came from the Employer on September 9, 2022. It stated, No objections to the release time request.

See City of Holyoke, 28 MLC 393 (2002) (language at issue arguably applies to all court actions but not complaints pending before administrative agencies); Town of Belchertown, ambiguous because 27 it implementation); Town MLC could 73 be (2000) (language construed of Dracut, 21 MLC to require 1593 (H.O., of a agreement found to be condition precedent to 1995), affd. 24 MLC 37 (1997) (possible interpretations of the language are as numerous as the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28 MLC 8, 11 (2001), citing Town of Belchertown, 27 MLC 73 (2000). In the present case, the Union cannot establish the necessary elements of a repudiation claim where the terms of the parties 1998 Memorandum of Agreement are ambiguous and remain silent on several critical issues. Because the contract is ambiguous, the Unions claim of repudiation must be dismissed as a matter of law.