COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS In the Matters of REKKKRERKEKKEKRKKREEEKREKEKEREEEKEKKEKKEKKEA KKK KKK KK K TOWN OF FALMOUTH AND Case Nos:: MUP-12-1749 MUP-12-1750 MUP-12-1751 MUP-12-1752 MUP-12-1753 MUP-12-1754 MUP-12-1755 MUP-12-1756 MUP-12-1758 TOWN OF PROVINCETOWN AND Case Nos:.: PROVINCETOWN SCHOOL COMMITTEE, MUP-12-1705 MUP-12-1706 MUP-12-1707 MUP-12-1734 MUP-12-1735 MUP-12-1736 FALMOUTH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, and FALMOUTH

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS BEFORE THE COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD In the Matters of RRERERERREERREHEERREREREERERA ARK KKKKKAKKKaEKKKRKKKKaKE TOWN OF FALMOUTH AND FALMOUTH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Case Nos.: MUP-12-1749 MUP-12-1750 MUP-12-1751 MUP-12-1752 MUP-12-1753 MUP-12-1754 MUP-12-1755 MUP-12-1756 MUP-12-1758 Case Nos.: MUP-12-1705 and FALMOUTH EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION AND AFSCME, COUNCIL 93 TOWN OF PROVINCETOWN

(CQ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD TOWN OF FALMOUTH AND FALMOUTH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Respondents Case Nos.: MUP-12-1749 MUP-12-1752 MUP-12-1753 MUP-12-1754 MUP-12-1755 MUP-12-1756 MUP-12-1758 MUP-12-1750 MUP-12-1751 Case Nos.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006). As prescribed by G.L. c. 31, 43, 2, the Appointing Authority bears the burden of proving just cause for the discipline imposed by a preponderance of the evidence.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006). As prescribed by G.L. c. 31, 43, 2, the Appointing Authority bears the burden of proving just cause for the discipline imposed by a preponderance of the evidence.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. The role of the Commission is to determine "whether the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the Mass.App.Ct. appointing 300, 304, authority." rev.den., 426 City Mass. of 43 of Leominster _v. _v. Civil Service (1997). See also City 1102 18 Commn, Cambridge Stratton, 58 Mass. App.

See, e.g., Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823, (2006); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commn, 38 Mass App.Ct.473,477 (1995); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App Ct. 331,334, rev.den.,390 Mass. 1102, (1983).

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555 (1984), affid sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 18 MLC 1161, 1163 (1986).

See Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 441 Mass. 814, 822-23 (2006); Donnelly v. Cambridge Public Schools, 21 MCSR 665 (2008); Volpicelli v. Woburn, 22 MCSR 448 (2009); Novia v. City of Boston, 20 MCSR 639 (2007); Maurice v. Massachusetts Dept of Mental Health, 19 MCSR 328 (2006); Konikowski v. Department of Corrections, 10 MCSR 79 (1997); Springer v. Town of Saugus, 8 MCSR 154 (1995).

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1984), affid sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) will conclude that no repudiation has occurred.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. The Commissions role is to determine "whether the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority." City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also Police Dept of Boston v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.