City of Cambridge, Case No. G1-05-228 (Feb. 8, 2007), at p. 3 (employee seeking voluntary transfer from one department to another was not protected under Chapter 31). In this present case the Appellant is demanding the right to voluntarily transfer or promotional opportunity from one departmental unit to another, from the Water Division to the Highway Section of the DPW.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

See OML Declination 12-20-21 (Cambridge Highlands) (rejecting complainants argument that placement of contact information for [neighborhood association] on the City of Cambridges website transforms it into an arm of the City.). For these reasons, we find that the Working Group is not a public body. Because the Working Group does not meet the first of the three factors above, we need not proceed further with our analysis.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, 13 Ms. Curran never received a written notice of [its] decision from the Board, the appointing authority, but the parties have treated the Boards adoption of Mr. Coddingtons Findings and Recommendations as the equivalent of the required Section 41 written decision.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (emphasis added) 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.

See, e.g., City of Cambridge v. Baldasaro, 50 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4, rev.den., 432 Mass, 1110 (2000); School Committee of Brockton v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App,Ct. 486, 491-92, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1104 (1997); Timperly v.

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. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 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.

The Hearing Officer held that, notwithstanding the Unions admission that it had signed and ratified the CBA, its denial that the parties agreed to a successor CBA raised a material dispute of fact that rendered both Motions inappropriate under Boston School Committee, 36 MLC 48, 49 (MUP-05-4532 (September 9, 2013) and City of Cambridge, 2659 (June 4 MLC 1044, 1050, MUP- 13, 1977).

Fax Number 159 Thorndike Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 6. Employee Organization (if any): Cambridge Education Association 617-349-6499 7. Representative to contact 9. Telephone Number Jill Coleman 781-246-9779 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 10. Fax Number c/o MTA, 50 Salem Street, Bldg. B, Lynnfield, MA 01940 781-246-9774 8. 11. This charge is filed against (check one) 42.