City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See 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 of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See 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 of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923 (1997). It is well settled that reasonable justification requires that the Appointing Authoritys actions be based on adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind guided by common sense and correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928).

See, e.g., City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997). However, the governing statute, G.L. c. 31 2(b), gives the Commissions de novo review broad scope to evaluate the legal 8 basis of the appointing authoritys action and it is not necessary for the Commission to find that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id.

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. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev.den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).

General Background The Association is the exclusive bargaining representative for a bargaining unit of sergeants and lieutenants, whom the City of Cambridge (City) employs in its police department. Sennott is a sergeant and has been a member of the Unions bargaining unit since October 2007.7. On February 26, 2011, Sennott was involved in a motor vehicle accident (February 26, 2011 accident) while operating his police cruiser.

Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (inconsequential differences in facts found were insufficient to find appointing authoritys justification unreasonable); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (same). See generally Villare v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303, 682 N.E.2d 923, 925 (1997). Justified means "done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an 23 unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law." Jd, at 304.

.); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (Commission may not substitute its judgment for a valid exercise of appointing authority discretion, but the Civil Service Law gives the Commission some scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authoritys action, even if based on a rational ground.); Mayor of Revere v.

Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). The Commission determines justification for discipline by inquiring, "whether the employee has been guilty of substantial misconduct which adversely affects the public interest by impairing the efficiency of public service."