City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). An action is justified when it is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law. fd. at 304, quoting Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First District Court of EF. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928); Commissioners of Civil Service v.
City ofCambridge 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).
Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine the credibility of the testimony presented through the witnesses who appear before the Commission. See, e.g., Leominster v.
City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 408, 411, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commn, 38 Mass App.Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Town of Watertown v.
City ofCambridge, MCSR 297 (2011), citing Cotter v. City of Boston, 24 193 F. Supp.2d 62, 323 (D.Mass. 2002), rev'd other grounds, 323 F.3d 160 (1" Cir), cert.den., 540 U.S. 825 (2003); Breton v. City of New Bedford, 21 MCSR 127 (2008); Bartalomi v. City of Holyoke, 21 MCSR. 94 (2008); Dalrymple v.
City ofCambridge, 5 MLC 1291, 1293, MUP-2799 (September 27, 1978). In November 2018, the hardware and software for the devices were upgraded, however, the functionality of the cameras remained unchanged.
This argument is without merit, as the Settlement Agreement does not change the fact that the Union filed the grievance. "' In its brief, the Employer does not argue that the Union Representatives statements _ were not protected activity. 7 : SUP-07-5356 ND As noted by the Union, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that a WO threat to sue a union member for engaging in protected activity violates Section 8(a)(1) & City ofCambridge,
City ofCambridge 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 ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification is defined as adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Jeremy LaFlamme CS-08-201 G-07-429 Wakefield v. Judge of First District Court of East Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) and Commissioners of Civil Service v.
City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923, 926 (1997). The photographs of the sign-out sheets could potentially support an argument that the Police Department was biased against Igoe because it disciplined her for leaving work before 3:00 p.m., although it routinely allowed others to do so. The photographs alone, however, do not establish bias.