Department of Correction, 19 MCSR 211 (2006) (discharge; 42 appeal denied); Fopiano v. Scituate, 12 MCSR 154 (1999) discharge; 42 appeal denied); Dodge v. Athol Police Dept, 11 MSCR 207 (1998) (discharge; 42 appeal denied); Carey v. Nahant, 6 MCSR 149 (1993) (discharge; 42 appeal denied).

See Bayyat v Department of Correction, D1-09-234, Dismissed July 10, 2009, 22MCSR See also Sullivan v Town of Sandwich 21 MCSR of Correction, 20 MCSR 394. 150 (2006); Fitzpatrick v Department 618, 2007, and Ware v City of Holyoke, 20 MCSR 272 (2007) I briefly address the issue raised in the Appellants Motion to Amend the Appeal. .

Daveiga: James OGara, Personnel Analyst III, Department of Correction; Nuias Daveiga, Appellant; and taking administrative notice of all matters filed in the case and pertinent statutes, two (2) prior bypass decisions issued by the Commission (see Daveiga v. Boston Police Department, CSC Case No. G1-11-17 (2011) (2011 Bypass); Daveiga v.

Department of Correction, 26 MCSR 251 (2013) (marijuana arrest as a teenager did not justify bypass although a poor driving record within recent five year period did); Monagle v.

Department of Correction, 19 MCSR 211 (2006) (same). The evidence presented by Firefighter Carter does not constitute a showing of prejudice. However, the Thornton court granted relief without requiring any showing of actual prejudice. The Commission is bound to follow the Appeals Court decision. Under the rule established by Thornton, prejudice is presumed.

The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain employees of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Commonwealth) in statewide bargaining unit 4, who work for the Department of Correction. 4. The Commonwealth and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) that covers the members of the bargaining unit referred to in paragraph 3.

Pope goes above and beyond expectations to help incarcerated felons, to an extent he has never seen in his twenty-three year career at the Department of Correction. He noted that she had found a way to keep the inmates support cases on track, despite new DOR policies limiting her visit times, by working with him to interview inmates by telephone and transmit paperwork by email. One of her EPRS reports also noted that several years ago Ms.

Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 471 (2014); Gallagher v. City of Leominster, 22 MCSR 123 (2009) The preferred practice often calls for further inquiry and review, such as accessing the relevant incident reports to identify the specific misconduct, especially, when it is the misconduct, and not a conviction that underlies a bypass decision.

Department of Correction, 26 MCSR 519, 521 (2013); see also Gannon v. Boston Police Dept, 28 MSCR 543, 552-53 (2015). Third, as the City points out, there are substantial differences between the instant matter and the Commissions decision in Gannon v. Boston Police Dept, 28 MSCR 543 (2015), affd sub nom., Boston Police Dept v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 483 Mass. 461 (2019).

Ct. 726, 729 (2003); see also Department of Correction, 22 MCSR at 374 (It is the function of the hearing officer to determine the credibility of the testimony presented . . .). The Commission must take account of all credible evidence in the record, including whatever would fairly detract from the weight of any particular supporting evidence. Otero v. City of Lowell, 29 MSCR 512, 516 (2016); see also OLeary v.