Municipal Ct. of the City ofBoston, 359 Mass. 214 (1971). A preponderance of the evidence test requires the Commission to determine whether, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Appointing Authority has established that the reasons assigned for the bypass of an Appellant were more probably than not sound and sufficient. Mayor of Revere v. Civil Service Commission, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 315 (1991).
Municipal Ct. of the City ofBoston, 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971). The Commission determines justification for discipline by inquiring, "whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of public service." Murray v. Second Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514 (1983); School Committee of Brockton v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App.
City ofBoston, 20 MLC 1603, 1607, MUP-7976 (1994); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 20 MLC 1545, 1552, SUP-3460 (May 13, 1994). It is well-established that an employer does not have to bargain before installing new equipment that serves as merely a more efficient and dependable means of enforcing existing work rules that did not impact an underlying term or condition of employment.
Municipal Ct. of the City ofBoston, 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971). The proper inquiry for determining if an action was justified is, whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of the public service. Murray v. Second Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 389 Mass. 508, 514 (1983). School Committee of Brockton v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App.
City ofBoston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395 at 6 (June 20, 2024) (personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield.) Consequently, I find that the Town has met its burden to withhold the responsive record under Exemption (c). Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Ms.
City ofBoston, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 829 (1973). 15 But-For Analysis 16 Even assuming that the City had met its burden of demonstrating legitimate 17 reasons for its conduct, the Hearing Officer proceeded to analyze, under the final stage 18 of the Trustees of Forbes Library analysis, whether the Charging Parties had 19 demonstrated that, but for their protected,concerted activity, the City would not have 20 terminated them.
City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-04-4503 (Jan. 9, 2009); Town of Carver, 35 MLC 29, 47, MUP-03-3094 (June 30, 2008); City ofBoston, 35 MLC 289, 291, MUP-04-4077 (May 20, 2009); Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361, 1365, MUP-5659 (Nov. 9, 1985). Neither the Union nor the individual Charging Parties dispute the contents of the letter that was sent anonymously to Sakiewicz and signed by Westfield Fire Fighters on or about February 22, 2018.
City ofBoston, 8 8 MLC 1872, 1875, MUP-3994 (February 25, 1982); Town of Shrewsbury, 5 MLC 1519, 9 1523, MUP-2999 (December 22, 1978). To be concerted, the evidence must demonstrate 10 that the employee is acting with other employees, or on the authority of other employees, 11 rather than acting out of self-interest.
Town of Clinton, 12 MLC 1361 (1985); Boston City Hospital, 11 MLC 1065 (1984); City ofBoston (Police Department), 8 MLC 1361 (1872 (1982). Boston Water and Sewer Commission and Richard Fowler, 26 MLC, 61, 65 (2000). M.G.L.c. 10(a)(3). The discharge of an employee is unlawful and in violation of M.G.L.c. 150E 10(a)(1) and (3) if the employee would not have been discharged but for his or her protected activity.
Hurley Building 19 Staniford Street, 1st Floor Boston, MA RE: 02114 MCOFU and Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- SUP-10-5612 Coalition of Public Safety v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts SUP-10-5593 Dear Mr. Hatfield: Enclosed, with regard to the above-entitled matter, for filing please find the following: Briefon Behalf of Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, BA Stephen C.
Fax Number Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 3. 617-727-1477 One Ashburton Place Boston MA 02108 Employee Organization (if any): 6. Mass. Correction Officers Federated Union ; David Condon 101 Summer Street Boston MA 02110 617-439-0305 10. Fax Number Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 8. 9. Telephone Number 7. Representative to contact : 617-439-0325 11. This charge is filed against (check one) 12.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA 02108 DEVAL L, PATRICK GLEN : February 10, > 2014 PAUL DIETL Chief Human Resources Officer Edward Srednicki Executive Secretary Department of Labor Relations 19 Staniford Street Boston, MA 02114 RE: SUP-10-5612, SUP-10-5593 Dear Mr.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON, MA 02108 JAY GONZALEZ DEVAL L. PATRICK Governor Secretary TIMOTHY P. MURRAY Lieutenant Governor PAUL DIETL Chief Human Resources Officer April 13, 2012 Timothy Hatfield, Esq.
Srednicki, Executive Secretary Department of Labor Relations 19 Staniford Street, Boston, MA 02114 Re: and 1st Floor Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union and Coalition of Public Safety Commonwealth of Massachusetts/Commission of Administration and Finance DLR Case Nos. SUP-10-5612/SUP-10-5593 Dear Mr.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Department of Labor Relations, 19 Staniford Street, 1' Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (Telephone: (617) 626-7132).
City ofBoston, 26 MLC 80, 83, MUP-1478 (January 6, 2000). The Union presented evidence that Fiorentini made a statement which it alleges violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Law when, on or about October 31, 2021, Fiorentini told a group of individuals theres not a bigger group of [expletives] in the City.
Roberts, Director Department of Labor Relations 19 Staniford Street, 1st Floor Boston, MA 02114 Re: Haverhill Firefighters Union, Local 1011 and the City of Haverhill DLR Case No.: MUP-22-9075 Dear Mr. Roberts, Enclosed please find the City of Haverhills Response to the Charge of Prohibited Practice in the above-captioned matter. Please do not to hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa R.
City ofBoston, 41 MLC 119, 125, MUP-13-3371, MUP-14-3466, MUP-14-3504, (November 7, 2014). The Board's inquiry turns on whether employees in the unit have a reasonable expectation that the practice is unequivocal, has existed substantially unvaried for a reasonable period of time and is known and accepted by both parties.
City ofBoston screenings of Kavaleski, the Commission also ordered that it must use different examiners. After reviewing the administrative record, the relevant law, and the parties submissions, the Departments Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is ALLOWED and Kavaleskis Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.