Ct. of Boston, 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 16 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, 682 N.E. 2d 923 (1997). The Commission concludes that the Appellant was untruthful in regard to the events that occurred on December 29, 2004. The Appellants testimony regarding how his cruiser sustained damage that day can not be reconciled with the testimony of thenDeputy Police Chief Timothy Hassett and the evidence he gathered as part of his investigation.

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 (1997); Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331 (1983). 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. Wakefield v. First Dist. Ct. of E, Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928); Civil Service Commission v.

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 17 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, 5 MLC 1291 (1978). Here, the Sheriff's Office did not transfer any duties. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it did, the Union was on notice that the Sheriff's Office was advertising for a civilian employee to perform the duties of Records Supervisor and could have requested bargaining. However, it failed to follow up with the Sheriff's Office and thus waived its right to bargain by inaction.

City of Cambridge, 7 MLC 2111, 2112, MUP-3386 (May 6, 1981). Deferral to arbitration is a matter of discretion. Whittier Regional School Committee, 13 MLC 1325, 1331-32, MUP-5150 (December 11, 1986).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997). However, appointing authorities are vested with a degree of discretion in selecting public employees of skill and integrity.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, 32 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. 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. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev.den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).