City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification means the Appointing Authoritys 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. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997). It is well settled that reasonable justification requires that the Appointing Authority's actions be based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind guided 21 by common sense and correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928).

City of Cambridge vy. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923, 926 (1997). Rather, when altering a penalty, the Commission must focus on the fundamental purposes of the civil service system: to guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental employment decisions, including, of course, promotions, and to protect efficient public employees from political control.

Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City of Cambridge 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). The Commission determines justification for discipline by inquiring, "whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of public service."

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 Worcester, MUP-14-3596 (October 17, 2016) (Worcester) (citing City of Cambridge, 23 MLC 28, 36, MUP-9171 (June 28, 1996), affd sub nom., Cambridge Police See also, New York Mirror, 151 NLRB 834, 58 LRRM 1465, 1468 (1965). The National Labor Relations Board found such circumstances existed for unilateral action by the employer.

Murray Supervisor of Records Lieutenant Antonio Ayala Records Unit Cambridge Police Department 125 Sixth Street Cambridge, MA 02142 July 8, 2021 SPR21/1557 Dear Lieutenant Ayala: I have received the petition of Scott Ferguson appealing the response of the Cambridge Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 24, 2021, Mr.

Cambridge Public Schools 135 Berkshire Street Cambridge, MA 02141 mbayer@cambridgema.gov RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Bayer: This office received a complaint from Anna Shin on May 1, 2024, alleging that the Graham & Parks School Council (the Council) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.

-FRIED & ASSOCIATES 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 (617) 577-8090 Fax: (617) 577-8088 dfried(@fried-law.com August 31, 2016 | COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS | DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS ARTHUR BACON, Charging Party, | Vv. CASE NUMBER: JAIL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, Employee Organization. | - EXHIBIT A Suffolk County Sheriff's Department STEVEN W.

Fried & Associates 24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141 Dennis M. Coyne, Esq. McDonald, Lamond Canzoneri 352 Turnpike Road, Suite 310 Southborough, MA 01772 Re: SUPL-16-5473, Jail Officers and Employees Association of Suffolk County and Arthur Bacon Dear Mr. Fried and Mr.

See City of Cambridge, 5 MLC 1291, 1293 (1978). It is inexplicable that the Association failed to request to bargain. Town of Milford, 15 MLC 1247, 1252-54 (1988) With this knowledge, the Association had almost three (3) months to request to bargain over the role of Unit D members in the Advisory and it did not.

City of Cambridge, 5 MLC 1291, 14 1293, MUP-2799 (September 27, 1978). 15 Here, Union and the Employer had negotiated contractual language in Article XVI 16 (K) of Unit As 2018-2019 and 2019-2022 CBAs whereby both the Union and the 17 Employer each would appoint three members to the JLMS to discuss potential changes 18 to the Adams Advisory Program.