Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005) Relevant Civil Service Law The job title of Working Foreman/Laborer, sought by Mr. Pelligrini, is classified as a labor service position and, therefore, promotions to that position are governed by G.L.c.31,28 through 30.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005); cf. Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249 (2008). Statutory Bar Under G.L.c.125, 9, no person who has been convicted of a felony or who has been convicted of a misdemeanorshall be appointed to any position in the department of correction.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 4 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). 3 Applicable Civil Service Law Section 1 of G.L. c. 31 defines basic merit principles as: (a) recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment; (b) providing of equitable and adequate compensation for all employees; (c) providing of training and development for employees
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550n.6, (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 240, 249, (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635 36, (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). Accord Milliken & Co., v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008). See also Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Company, 451 Mass. 623, 635-36 (2008) (discussing standard for deciding motions to dismiss); cf. R.J.A. v. K.A.V., 406 Mass. 698 (1990) (factual issues bearing on plaintiffs standing required denial of motion to dismiss).
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). ANALYSIS The Appellant has failed to establish that replacing him as an out-of-grade Acting Captain with a Lieutenant whose name then appeared at the top of the active Captains eligible list has infringed on the Appellants civil service rights in a way that would entitle him to equitable relief from the Commission.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also, Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P.56, 4 namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.
Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.); Morehouse v.