Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823, 857 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (2006) and cases cited. The power accorded the commission to modify penalties must not be confused with the power to impose penalties ab initio, which is a power accorded the appointing authority. Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004) quoting Police Commr v. Civil Service Commn, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 594, 600 (1996).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (inconsequential differences in facts found were insufficient to hold appointing Cambridge v.

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 appointing authority." City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also City of Leominster v.

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 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 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 appointing authority." City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also City of Leominster v.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TOWN OF FALMOUTH AND AFSCME LOCAL 1636, UNIT B (July 1, 2017 June 30, 2020) TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE: SUBJECT: Article | Recognition Article 2 Management Rights Article 3 Personnel File Article 4 Performance Evaluation & Step Increase 4.1 Step Increases Job Descriptions & Reclassification Procedure Article 6 Hours of Work 6.1 Hours of Work 6.2 Overtime & Compensatory Time 6.3 Call Back 64 Details 6.5 Court Pay 6.6

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.

Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003) (affirming de novo decision to reject appointing authoritys evidence of appellants failed polygraph test and prior domestic abuse orders and crediting appellants exculpatory testimony) with Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service 20 Commn, 447 Mass. 814,823 (2006) (inconsequential differences in facts found did not make appointing authoritys justification unreasonable).

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 22 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 City of Leominster v.