Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Comm'n, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006). Clark v. Boston Housing Authority, 24 MCSR 193 (2011), Clark v. Boston Housing Authority, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. SUCV2011-2554E, affd (Feb. 13, 2015).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. It is also a basic tenet of the merit principle which governs Civil Service Law that discipline must be remedial, not punitive, designed to correct inadequate performance and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected. G.L.c.31,1. It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine credibility of testimony presented to the Commission.

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).

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1994), aff'd sub nom. Town of Falmouth 19 v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997); Commonwealth 20 Massachusetts, 36 MLC 65, SUPL-03-3008 (January 31, 2009). 16 of H.O. Decision (cont'd) MUP-13-2797 In order for the parties to have an agreement, there must be a meeting of the minds on the actual terms of the agreement.

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555, MUP-8114 (May 16, 1994), aff'd sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Commission, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997).

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 v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (200) (quoting Cambridge vy. Civil Serv. Commn., 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304 (1997)). Under G.L. c. 31, 43, the Commission is required to conduct a de novo hearing for the purpose of finding the facts anew. Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).

See Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) (As the finder of fact, assessing the credibility of witnesses is within the purview of the Commissions hearing officer); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 729 (2003) (same); Green v. Town of Brookline, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 127 (2001) (same); Springgate v. School Comm. of Mattapoisett, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 309-10 (1981) (same). Mr.

See also Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006), quoting Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, 334 (1983). Analysis The Respondent has established by a preponderance of the evidence that it had just cause to discipline the Appellant. Based upon the video surveillance footage, Dep. Chief Thompsons investigative report, and testimony of retired Dep. Chief Thompson, Chief DeNaro, Mr.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 824 (2006). A contrary approach would create a paradoxical scenario where as long as an appointing authority failed to discipline one bad actor, future bad actors also could not be disciplined. Desmond v. Town of W. Bridgewater, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1122, slip op. at 8 n.9 (2019) (unpublished memorandum opinion). See also Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. at 411-13; White v. Wareham Police Dept, No.