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 v. Civil Service Commission, App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The basis of my conclusion rests with my finding that the testimony of Mr. Gill that on three was extremely credible. Mr. Gill gave compelling testimony to the effect tion, verbally separate occasions in early 2005, the Appellant, without warning or provoca ed in detail the harassed and acted in an assaulting manner towards him. Mr.

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.

The Appeals Court ruled in Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 606 (2002), When, as here, a remedy has been created by statute and the time within which it must be pursued is one of the prescribed conditions under which it can be availed of, the [commission] has no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for relief begun at a later time. 7 Cheney v. Assessors of Dover, 205 Mass. 501, 503 (1910).

(See Town of Falmouth v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006). Here, the Commission does not act without regard to the previous decision of the [appointing authority], 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. at 823-24 (citing Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. The role of the Commission is to determine "whether the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority." City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also City of Leominster v.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, 1560, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1994); affd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). To determine whether the parties reached an agreement, the CERB considers whether there has been a meeting of the minds on the actual terms of the agreement. Town of Ipswich, 11 MLC 1403, 1410, MUP-5248 (February 7, 1985), affd sub nom., Town of Ipswich v. Labor Relations Commission, 21 Mass.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC Commission, 1555 (1994), affd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). If the evidence agreement or if the parties hold differing good issue, CERB the will conclude that no is insufficient to find an faith interpretations of the language at repudiation has occurred. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 18 MLC 1161, 1163 (1986).