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

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION One Ashburton Place Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617)727-2293 MARIA ARAUJO, Appellant v. CASE NO: D1-11-271 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Brian Rogal, Esq. Rogal & Donnellan, P.C. 100 River Ridge Drive Norwood, MA 02062 Appearance for Respondent: Heidi D. Handler, Counsel Department of Correction P.O.

Decision mailed: |zgli | Civil Service Commission COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SUFFOLK, SS. One Ashburton Place - Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2293 JONATHAN BEAN, Appellant v. CASE NO: D1-09-243 TOWN OF BOURNE, Respondent Appellants Attorney: John M. Becker, Esq. Sandulli Grace P.C. 1 State Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02108 Respondents Attorney: Robert S.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SUFFOLK, ss. One Ashburton Place Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617)727-2293 RAYMOND LECOMTE Appellant v. CASE NO: D1-10-303 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Respondent Appellants Attorney: Richard A. Westgate, Esq. 695 Wareham Street Middleboro, MA 02346 Appointing Authoritys Attorney: Heidi D. Handler, Esq. Department of Correction P.O.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION One Ashburton Place Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617)727-2293 Robert Tinker, Appellant v. CASE NO: D-10-120 Boston Police Department, Respondent Appellants Attorney: Edward J. McNelley, Atty. Barnicle, McNelley & Nugent 101 Tremont St. Suite 700 Boston, MA Respondents Attorney: 02108 Amanda Wall, Atty. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA Commissioner: 02120 Daniel M.

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.