City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (emphasis added) 12 However, the governing statute, G.L.c.31,2(b), gives the Commissions de novo review broad scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authority's action and it is not necessary for the Commission to find that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id.
City ofCambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). See Town of Watertownv. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); Mclsaac v. Civil Serv. Commn, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).
DLR FORM-005 (page 2) Revised 08/13 Summary of Basis of Charge ed a proposal to u from the On November 8, 2014, Teamsters Local 25 (my bargaining union) present pertaining to mandatory drug City ofCambridge (my employer) for a vote.
The Union is the exclusive representative for approximately three hundred bargaining unit members employed by the City ofCambridge (City) in Units A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Article | Recognition of the parties Agreement, designates the Units as follows: A. Public Works units including the non-clerical library and Print Shop employees; B. Clerical Unit; C. Traffic and Parking Unit; D. Electrical Department; E. Parking Control Officers; F.
City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983). McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995). Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000). City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).
City ofCambridge v. Civil 20 Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983). McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995). Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000). City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).
City ofCambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 408, 411, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commn, 38 Mass App.Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev.den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).
City ofCambridge, 10 MCSR 134, 137 (1997) Ouillette v. City of Cambridge, 19 MCSR 10 299, 303 (2006). In the instant appeal, the Appellant was suspended for four (4) work days and a hearing before the Appointing Authority was not required prior to the issuance of the suspension. For all of the above reasons, the Appellants Section 42 appeal under Docket No. D08-135 is hereby dismissed.
City ofCambridge vy. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification is defined as adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First District Court of East Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) and Commissioners of Civil Service vy.