See also, Department of Correction v. Massachusetts Corrections Officers Federated Union, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 903(2013) (although unions decision not to appeal courts order reversing arbitration award had clear and adverse consequences for plaintiff, he was not party to CBA and thus lacked standing to enforce CBA or defend his interpretation in court); AFSCME Council 93 v.

Third, in Department of Correction v. Massachusetts Corrections Officers Federated Union, 84 Mass.App.Ct. 903 (2013), the issue before the court was whether an employee was a proper defendant to an employers appeal of an arbitration award. The lower court vacated the award and the employee appealed.

Labor Relations Commission, 384 Mass. 559, 565-566 (1981); Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Department of Correction, 14 MLC 1743, 1747, SUP-3081 (May 19, 1988). Here, the School Committee provided multiple reasons why it reassigned Dababneh to the High School and not Coolidge.

Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 89 (1974) (officer suspended for six months for negligently handling weapon); Hershon v Department of Correction, 8 MCSR 202 (1995) (officer suspended for fifteen days and demoted in rank for pointing loaded weapon at fellow officer). Given the existing circumstances, the decision of the City to suspend the Appellant for twenty days was lenient.

Department of Correction, Fopiano vy. Scituate, MSCR 12 MCSR 19 MCSR 211 19 MSCR (2006) (same); 154 (1999) (same); Dodge v. Athol Police Dept, 207 (1998) (same); Carey v.

Department of Correction, CSC No. G1-14-23, 27 MCSR 556 92014) (DALA Magistrates decision, adopted by the Commission, analyzing the requirements of a reasonable review in detail, with specific reference to the recent sweeping changes in the CORI law and the Governors Executive Order No. 495 regarding agencies use of CORI information See G.L.c.6,171A, St.2010, c. 256; Exec.

Brockton Police Department, 11 MCSR 48, 50 (1998); and Preece v Department of Correction, 20 MCSR 152 (2007). Analysis Mr. Moran testified credibly when confirming certain reasons for the Departments bypass of the Appellant. Specifically, Mr. Morans testimony clearly confirmed the Departments reliance on the criminal charges as a reason for the Appellants bypass. To this end, Mr.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 159 (2000) (Commission upholds bypass where applicant's answers to situational scenarios did not comply with department policies and procedures and failed to demonstrate an ability to lead).

Department of Correction, 22 MCSR 162 (2009) (off-duty correctional officer resisted arrest); Higgins v. Plymouth Police Dept, 17 17 MCSR 113 (2004) (off-duty police officer resisted arrest); Clemons v. Boston Police Dept, 10 MCSR 118 (1997) (same) Fourth, it is also important to note that Costa was clearly off duty at the arbitration hearing on May 11, 2009 and was not wearing his NBFD shirt.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 159 (2000)(Commission upholds bypass where applicant's answers to situational scenarios did not comply with department policies and procedures and failed to demonstrate an ability to lead); McMahon v.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 159 (2000) (Commission upholds bypass where applicant's answers to situational scenarios did not comply with department policies and procedures and failed to demonstrate an ability to lead). The Appellant argues, either explicitly, or tacitly, that the process here was not fair and impartial.