Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the "action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the appointing authority made its decision. Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the appointing authority made its decision. Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 6, 1994), aff'd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the DLR will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 18 MLC 1161, 1163, SUP-3439 (October 16, 1991).

Town of Falmouth, 35 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1994), aff'd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor 4 H.O. Decision (contd.) MUP-16-5663 Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). find an agreement or if the parties language at issue, the hold Commonwealth differing If the evidence is insufficient to good Employment faith interpretations Relations Board of the (CERB) will conclude that no repudiation has occurred.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 6, 1994), time should still be qualified for the bonus pay. The Union acknowledged that it had not informed the Commonwealth prior to the Investigative Conference that an employee who had used union release time did not receive the bonus pay under the COVID-19 MOA.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823; 857 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (2006). Here the Commission does not act without regard to the previous decision of the town, but rather decides whether there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the appointing authority made its decision. Id. (citing Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App.

Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003) (affirming de novo decision to reject appointing authoritys evidence of appellants failed polygraph test and prior domestic abuse orders and crediting appellants exculpatory testimony) with Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) (inconsequential differences in facts found did not make appointing authoritys justification unreasonable).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). 19 The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth. 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (1994), affd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass App. Ct. 1113 (1997); Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 36 MLC 65, 68 (2009). 6 To show that an employer has repudiated an agreement, the charging party must prove that the employer deliberately refused to abide by the agreement. Worcester County Sheriffs Department, 28 MLC 1, 6 (2001); City of Quincy, 17 MLC at 1608.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 9 Complaint and Partial Dismissal (contd) MUP-21-8790 6, 1994), aff'd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997).