When, for the convenience of the Committee, a Custodian covered by this contract is required to work in a job classification which pays a higher rate of pay, he will be eligible, after completion of twenty (20) consecutive working days, to receive the higher rate of pay being subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission. Every effort will be made to replace rated persons with Custodians of the same rating.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION One Ashburton Place: Room 503 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2293 KIRK MERRICKS, Appellant v. D1-17-027 BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Bryan Decker, Esq. Decker & Rubin, P.C. 295 Freeport Street Boston, MA 02122 Appearance for Respondent: Katherine Hoffman, Esq. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Commissioner: Cynthia A.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 979-1900 ROBERT BROWN, JR., Appellant v. D-21-223 CITY OF CHELSEA, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Paul A. Magliocchetti, Esq. Sheehan, Schiavone, Jutras and Magliocchetti, LLP 70 Bailey Boulevard Haverhill, MA 01830 Appearance for Respondent: Kay H. Hodge, Esq. John M. Simon. Esq.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 979-1900 JOSEPH ABASCIANO, Appellant v. BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Docket Number: D1-23-033 Appearance for Appellant: Mark P. Gagliardi, Esq. Law Office of Mark P. Gagliardi 56 Pine Street Suite 200 Providence, RI 02903 Appearance for Respondent: Joseph A. McClellan, Esq.

The Civil Service Commission held it had no jurisdiction over plaintiffs-appellants' appeal because it found them to be similarly situated to all other Educational Specialists in The Division of Inmate Training and Educational; and, therefore, their reclassification requests were governed by the collective bargaining process under Massachusetts law. The state courts affirmed the Commission's decision.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02114 (617) 979-1900 JOHN ADAMS, Appellant v. D1-20-114 DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Respondent Appearance for Appellant: Daniel J. Moynihan, Esq. Mark A. Russell, Esq. Law Office of Daniel J. Moynihan, P.C. 271 Main Street, Suite 302 Stoneham, MA 02180 Appearance for Respondent: Suzanne Caravaggio, Esq. Daniel Brunelli, Esq.

L. c. 30A, 14 to appeal a determination by the Civil Service Commission (the Commission) affirming a decision of the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD) to bypass Gailliard for appointment to the position of Field Parole Officer. The matter is before the court on Gailliards. motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the cae coe R. Commission is affirmed and Gailliards motion is DENIED.

No agreement was reached. 2 These Civil Service Commission decisions were attached to the Joint Motion to Reopen the Record. 3 The City and the Unions dispute whether to characterize the issue as involving an examination or process. Unless obvious by context, the terms are used interchangeably. 5 19.

The 2002 promotional process was modified by the City following complaints by the Unions at the Civil Service Commission. See BPSOF et al v. BPD, |-02-6-6 et al, 21 MCSR 59 (2008) & 21 MCSR 237 (2008). Specifically, the City agreed to remove the Performance Review System component. See id.

No agreement was reached. 2 These Civil Service Commission decisions were attached to the Joint Motion to Reopen the Record. 3 The City and the Unions dispute whether to characterize the issue as involving an examination or process. Unless obvious by context, the terms are used interchangeably. 5 19.

The 2002 promotional process was modified by the City following complaints by the Unions at the Civil Service Commission. See BPSOF et al v. BPD, |-02-6-6 et al, 21 MCSR 59 (2008) & 21 MCSR 237 (2008). Specifically, the City agreed to remove the Performance Review System component. See id.

No agreement was reached. 2 These Civil Service Commission decisions were attached to the Joint Motion to Reopen the Record. 3 The City and the Unions dispute whether to characterize the issue as involving an examination or process. Unless obvious by context, the terms are used interchangeably. 5 19.

The 2002 promotional process was modified by the City following complaints by the Unions at the Civil Service Commission. See BPSOF et al v. BPD, |-02-6-6 et al, 21 MCSR 59 (2008) & 21 MCSR 237 (2008). Specifically, the City agreed to remove the Performance Review System component. See id.