City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (emphasis added) However, the governing statute, G.L.c.31,2(b), also gives the Commissions de novo review broad scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authority's action; it is not necessary for the Commission to find that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id.

City of Cambridge, 7 MLC 2111, 2112, MUP-3386 (May 6, 1981). The decision to defer is discretionary, Whittier Regional School Committee, 13 MLC. 1325, 1331-32, MUP-5150 (Dec. 11, 1986). The CERB generally defers cases when: the issue presented is essentially a question of contract interpretation; the statutory issues raised by the case are well established; and the resources of the DLR and the parties can be conserved through deferral.

Sherriff of Worcester County, MUP-03-3884 (October 27, 2004) (citing Town of Wenham, 23 MLC 82, 83 (1996); City of Worcester, 4 MLC 1373, 1374 (1977); City of Cambridge, 4 MLC 1044, 1046 (1977)). 1 To the extent the SUP-20-7896 charge is based on this proposal it is untimely. 2 The Union previously filed charge SUP-19-7136 and SUP-20-7896 relitigates that case.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification means the Appointing Authority's actions were based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). Commissioners of Civil Service v.

City of Cambridge v, Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. 11 App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997); Town of Watertown v, Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac y. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v, Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v, Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); Mclsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission. 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). In order to show reasonable justification, the appointing authority must demonstrate that the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of the public service. School Committee of Brockton v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 486, 488 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

A public employer violates Section 10(a)(5) of the Law when it transfers work without giving performed by bargaining unit members to non-bargaining unit personnel its employees exclusive collective bargaining opportunity to bargain to resolution or impasse. (1996); affd_sub_nom., Cambridge Police an prior notice and City of Cambridge, 23 MLC 28, 36 representative Superior Officers Relations Commission, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (1999).