Department of Correction, 26 MCSR 474 (2013). As noted above, G.L. c. 31, 43 provides for modification of discipline issued by an appointing authority to a civil service employee. The Commission has been delegated considerable discretion albeit not without bounds to modify a penalty imposed by the appointing authority, as long as the Commission provides a rational explanation for how it has arrived at its decision to do so.

Additionally, Shine is no longer employed by the SSRSD but, instead, is employed by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (the DOC). As such, the case is moot and the Charge, if not deferred to arbitration, should be dismissed on this separate ground.

The statute provides in relevant part: The home address and home telephone number of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutorial, department of youth services, department of children and families, department of correction and any other public safety and criminal justice system personnel, and of unelected general court personnel, shall not be public records in Helen Rush-Lloyd Page 3 June 19, 2019 SPR19/1143 the custody of the employers of such personnel

L. c. 66, 1OB, provides in pertinent part: The home address, personal email address and home telephone number of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutorial, department of youth services, department of children and families, department of correction and any other public safety and criminal justice system personnel, and of unelected general court personnel, shall not be public records in the custody of the employers of such personnel or the public employee

Telephone Number Massachusetts Department of corrections 508-422-3300 3,4,5,6. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 7. FAX Number 50 Maple street milford ma 01757 EMPLOYER'S LABOR RELATIONS REPRESENTATIVE 8. Name 9. Telephone Number 10,11,12,13. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP 14. FAX Number code) 15. E-mail address 16. Firm/Organization Name EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION (if any) 17. Name SEIU 509 18.

Department of Correction, 16 MCSR 54 (2003), affd sub nom, Pimental v. Civil Service Commn, Suffolk Superior Civ. No. SUCV2003-5908 (June 6, 2005); McDonald v. Boston Public Works, 14 MCSR 60 (2001); Sheehan v. Worcester, 11 MCSR 100 (1998); Brindle v. Taunton, 7 MCSR 112 (1994); Tomasian v. Boston Police Dept, 6 MCSR 221 (1993). The questions presented by Mr.

The Appellant is employed at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). 2. On February 15, 2020, the Appellant took the promotional examination for CPO C, administered by HRD. 3. The Appellant received a written score of 90 and an Education and Experience (E&E) score of 79.6, for a total score of 86. 4. On June 11, 2020, HRD established an eligible list for CPO C.

Department of Corrections, 10 MCSR 79 (1997); Springer v. Town of Saugus, 8 MCSR 154 (1995). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Woburns Motion to Dismiss is hereby, allowed, and the appeal of the Appellant, Sean Martin, is hereby, dismissed. Civil Service Commission Paul M. Stein Commissioner By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chairman; Ittleman, McDowell & Stein, Commissioners) on October 16, 2014. A True Record.

Department of Correction, 12 MCSR 169, 170 (1999); (The Commission finds that the rejection of the Appellants request to use sick leave time accrued is in the area of collective bargaining and not within the purview of c. 31, 41); Sullivan v.

For example, there are many references, in the hard copy documents and digital recordings to a Department of Correction employee who made allegations of misconduct against [an identified individual], prompting [her] to obtain a restraining order against [an identified individual].