Firm/Organization Name Massachusetts |Parole Board 33. This charge isi filed against Employer (E) 0or Employee Organization (O): 34. The above named employer or employee organization has engaged or is engaging in a prohibited practice within the meaning of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 150E, Section(s) (enter all appropriate sections/subsections) 150E-10(b)1 O 35.
Firm/Organization stephanie.mastrangelo@massmail.state.ma.us Name Massachusetts Parole Board 33. This charge is filed against Employer (E) or Employee Organization (O): O 34. The above named employer or employee organization has engaged or is engaging in a prohibited practice within the meaning of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 150E, Section(s) (enter all appropriate sections/subsections) 150E-10(b)1 35.
In its other response, the Department stated One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2832 Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre pre@sec.state.ma.us Kate Silvia Page 2 September 27, 2021 SPR21/2341 that, [t]his responds to your follow up correspondence dated August 6, 2021[and a]s stated in your previous response, the MA Parole Board is the custodian of the records regarding [the] parole violation reportRegarding CDC
Nadworny states, [p]rior to the [r]equestors July 2021 Parole Hearingthe Chief of the Department, authored a letter in opposition to the [r]equestors parole submitted to the Massachusetts Parole Board [Board] to be taken into the Boards decisionmaking process in approving or denying parole. In light of the above, it is unclear whether the Department has in its possession the above specified letter.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that, for the reasons stated within HRDs Motion to Dismiss, this appeal must be dismissed as moot. The Appellant has received full and proper credit he claimed for a related associates degree. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, HRDs Motion to Dismiss is allowed, and the Appellants appeal under Case No.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that, for the reasons stated in HRDs Motion to Dismiss, the Appellant never filed any request for a fair test review of the Fire Lieutenant examination or for a review of the marking of any specific answers to the Situational Judgment component of the examination within the time prescribed by G.L. c. 31, 22.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008). 2 Based on the undisputed facts, Mr. DeRoses non-selection for appointment to the NBPD was not a bypass from which the Appellant has the right of appeal to the Commission.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) ANALYSIS The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to Mr. Haag, establish that Worcesters letter dated February 4, 2020 erroneously stated that he was bypassed for appointment, when, in fact, he was not bypassed within the meaning of G.L.c.31,2(b) & G.L.c.31, 27.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) The undisputed facts in this matter establish that, on or about February 4, 2015, DOC notified Correction Officer Mason that DOC would convene a Commissioners (appointing authority) hearing pursuant to G.L.c.31,41, on February 26, 2014, relative to certain charges that he had violated DOC rules and regulations on May 9, 2014 and August 8, 2014.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 369 Mass. 701, 703 (1976). Attorney General v. Commissioner of Insurance, 403 Mass. 370, 380 (1988). Marchionda, supra. Chapter 31 defines a "person aggrieved" as an individual whose "rights were abridged, denied or prejudiced in such a manner as to cause actual harm to the person's employment status." G. L. c. 31, Sec. 2. Here, as in the Hudson case, the Appellant's retirement predated his termination.