CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION One Ashburton Place Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2293 JAMES VERDERICO, Appellant v. Case No. B1-13-254 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: James Verderico Pro Se Appearances for Respondent: Andrew Levrault, Esq. Melinda Willis, Esq. Labor Counsels Human Resources Division One Ashburton Place, Room 207 Boston, MA 02108 Commissioner: Cynthia A.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 979-1900 STEVEN MULLEN, Appellant v. CITY OF REVERE, Respondent Docket Number: D-23-178 Appearance for Appellant: Neil Rossman, Esq. Rossman and Rossman 8 Essex Center Drive Peabody, MA 01960 Appearance for Respondent: Matthew J. Buckley, Esq. City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Commissioner: Angela C.

The City will Massachusetts Human petition Resources the Civil Service Commission Division (Commission) to amend of the State of the promotional date of Captain Kane from October 6, 2015, to May 16, 2015. Kane shall be deemed in terms of seniority, benefits, and all rights and privileges of the position as held since May 16, 2015, as approved by the Commission.

The City also agrees to take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Law: Petition the Civil Service Commission to amend the promotional date of Christopher Kane from October 6, 2015, to May 16, 2015. Kane shall be deemed in terms of seniority, benefits, and all rights and privileges of the position as held since May 16, 2015, as approved by the Commission. Pay Kane $3,801.00.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION One Ashburton Place, Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2293 SCOTT STEEVER and MICHAEL GORE, Appellants Docket Nos.: D-05-160 D-05-164 v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent Attorney for the Appellant: Stephen Pfaff, Atty. Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP 67 Batterymarch Street Boston, MA 02110 Representative of Respondent: Jeffrey S. Bolger Director of Employee Relations Department of Correction P.O.

GERALD ALSTON AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The plaintiff, Town of Brookline (Town or Brookline) brought this administra appeal under G.L. c. 31, 44 from a decision dated February 14, 2019 (Decision or Alston IIT) by the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (Commission), reinstating firefighter Gerald Alston (Alston) to his position in the Brookline Fire Department (Fire Department

If pursuant M.G.L. c. 31, an individual employee requests and appointing authority hearing and/or files an appeal with the Civil Service Commission, neither the individual nor the Union may file a grievance and/or appeal to arbitration regarding the subject of the appointing authority hearing and/or appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

He states, "[t]he Civil Service Commission recently ordered the Town to [un-redact] Section 10 of the agreement." Attorney Ames also notes "I request the Supervisor of Records examine the other provisions of the agreement to determine whether they qualify for the exemptions claimed." Please note, access to records through discovery or an administrative process is distinct from access to a record or information under the Public Records Law.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, & others Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS In 2007, defendant Thomas H. Martin (Martin) was on the reserve list for a permanent firefighter position with plaintiff Woburn Fire Department WED)?

MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND CITY OF GLOUCESTER MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The plaintiff Alex Aiello, an officer with the Gloucester Police Department (GPD), seeks judicial review of a decision from the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (Commission) in which it concluded that the City of Gloucester (City) had just cause to suspend Aiello but reduced his suspension from five to

Furthermore, the Department explained that the Grievant had a previous promotional bypass case which appeared before the Civil Service Commission. In that case, the Grievant claimed that he was wrongfully bypassed for promotion but said that he did not consider that there was any bias involved in the decision not to promote him.

The Union did not file an unfair labor practice charge regarding the bypass or the interview, but JF pursued an appeal at the Civil Service Commission. 2 The Union alleges that NM was promoted within one year of a positive drug test and that the promotion occurred on an unspecified date in the last 10 years. The City stated at the investigation that NM was covered by a rehabilitation agreement from 1997-1998 and received a promotion in 2005.