Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The Commission does not possess the authority to substitute its judgment about a valid exercise of discretion based on merit or policy considerations by an appointing authority. Id. 8 The Respondent has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the Appointing Authority.

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 y.

See 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....)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Town of Falmouth v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800, 814 N.E.2d 735, 738-39 (2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). When an applicant appeals an appointing authoritys decision to bypass him for a position, the appointing authority must show a reasonable justification for its decision. Cambridge, 43 Mass. App. Ct. at 303, 682 N.E.2d at 925.

Town of Falmouth vy, 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. App.

Town of Falmouth v. The issue for the Commission is not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, Justin Sousa G1-12-79 CS-12-349 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. Arria, 16 Mass. App.

The Commissions duty is to determine whether there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the [CJomission to have existed when the appointing authority made its decision, Town of Falmouth y, Civ. Serv.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1994), affd sub nom. Town Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 agreement, or the parties have a good agreement, there is no repudiation. Id. of Falmouth v. Labor Relations (1997). Conversely, faith dispute if there is no over the meaning of their The City here has not refused to implement the terms of the MOA but, rather, has issued additional procedures to be followed in implementing the agreement.

Town of Falmouth v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 447 Mass. 814, 823-824 (2006) (citations, internal punctuation omitted). Aiello contends that the Commissions decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was based on an error of law.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. See also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law); Commissioners of Civil Service v.