COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 617-979-1900 DANIEL KENNEALLY, Appellant B2-23-115 v. HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Daniel Kenneally, Pro Se Appearance for Respondent: Melissa Thomson, Esq. Labor Counsel Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Commissioner: Paul M.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 617-979-1900 MICHAEL DUNNIGAN, Appellant B2-23-076 v. HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Michael Dunnigan, Pro Se Appearance for Respondent: Ashlee N. Logan, Esq. Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Commissioner: Paul M.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 617-979-1900 JASON LABER, Appellant, v. E-23-254 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Patrick N. Bryant, Esq. Pyle, Rome & Ehrenberg PC 2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor Boston MA 02109 Appearance for Respondent: Michael J. Maccaro, Esq. Madison Harris-Parks, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 617-979-1900 SCOTT D. RUBESKI, Appellant v. HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent Docket Number: B2-24-130 Appearance for Appellant: Scott D. Rubeski, Pro Se Appearance for Respondent: Shelia B. Gallagher, Esq. Labor Counsel Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Commissioner: Paul M.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 979-1900 FRANCISCO RIVERA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Docket Number: G1-23-154 Appearance for Appellant: James Gilden, Esq. 173 North Main St Sharon, MA, 02067-1230 Appearance for Respondent: Omar Bennani, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 979-1900 JEFFREY ORTIZ, Appellant v. CITY OF HOLYOKE, Respondent Docket Number: E-25-019 Appearance for Appellant: Pro Se Jeffrey Ortiz Appearance for Respondent: Kathleen E. Degnan, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of Holyoke 20 Korean Veterans Plaza Holyoke, MA 01040 Commissioner: Christopher C.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 GREGORY HELMS, Appellant v. HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent Docket Number: B2-24-178 Appearance for Appellant: Gregory Helms, Pro Se Appearance for Respondent: Ashlee N. Logan, Esq. Labor Counsel Human Resources Division 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114 Commissioner: Paul M.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION SUFFOLK, ss. Docket No. G1-07-101 JUSTINIANO PLAZA, Appellant v. BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Appellants Attorney: Frank D. Camera, Esq. 56 N. Main Street #321 Fall River, MA 02720 Respondents Attorney: Sheila B. Gallagher, Esq. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Hearing Officer: John J.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICECOMMISSION One Ashburton Place Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 979-1900 MARISSA HOLLAND, Appellant v. CASE NO. G2-21-001 TOWN OF DEDHAM, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Joseph L. Sulman, Esq. Law Offices of Joseph L. Sulman 391 Totton Pond Road, Suite 402 Waltham, MA 02451 Appearance for Respondent: John F. Dolan, Esq.
Jd An ' Determinations of the Civil ServiceCommission in the prior proceedings involving the same parties are entitled to preclusive effect. See Green v. Town of Brookline, 53 Mass. App.
Duffy then the City reduced Duffys suspension appealed his one-day suspension for neglect of duty to the Civil ServiceCommission. 3 Although the City suspended Duffy for two days, Duffy indicated that he actually lost three days of pay. 31 Chief Gemme testified at hearing that he suspended Duffy because he failed to report to work on November 23, 2011 as well as on December 24, 2011.
To the contrary, the Civil ServiceCommission, which already looked at this issue, and upon which both parties rely as a Joint Exhibit 2, reached the conclusion that all of the parties involved in this matter had a good faith belief in their respective position with respect to who had the obligation to advise the new department of time off requested and approved in a prior department.
With respect to whether there was just cause to suspend Duffy, he has been afforded all rights available to him, and, to that end, a hearing before the Civil ServiceCommission has been scheduled for October 31, 2012. (See Notice of Full Hearing, CSC Case No. D-12-198, attached hereto.) 15.
With respect to whether there was just cause to suspend Duffy, he has been afforded all rights available to him, and, to that end, a hearing before the Civil ServiceCommission has been scheduled for October 31, 2012. (See Notice of Full Hearing, CSC Case No. D-12-198, attached hereto.) 15.