- The Appellant is entitled to certain relief as a result of being on active miltary duty when certain appointments were made.
- The parties mutually agreed to give Appellant a retroactive seniority date after he was initially bypassed for a senior custodian position, but was selected for another senior custodian position later. Accordingly, the Commission ordered HRD to change Appellant’s seniority date.
- The Appellant has show that he should have a retroactive civil service seniority date back to when he began as a police officer in Newton as he transferred to Lawrence and served three years (G.L. c. 31, s.33)
- Appellant asserted that her bumping rights as a permanent civil service employee were denied by Billerica public schools; however, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Appellant was never separated from her employment position. After Appellant declined to accept a three 12-month position offered to her, she was merely re-assigned to a 10-month position. Appeal dismissed.
- The Boston Housing Authority had reasonable justification to terminate the Appellant for failing to comply with their drug testing policy and taking an unauthorized leave of absence. Boston Housing Authority’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Appeal dismissed.
- The Commission held that Appellant’s performance evaluation, conducted by the Town of Appellant, was done objectively and consistently with the Appointing Authority’s policy and procedures. Appellant did not offer any evidence to dispute otherwise, thus appeal was dismissed.
- The Appellant "died on the vine" as the eligible list upon which his name expired prior to the City making a promotional apopintment for Fire Captain. He is not entitled to any relief. Appeal dismissed.
- An Appellant can not appeal a termination when he is only a provisional employee and does not have civil service status. Appellant held the position of a Youth Coordinator in the Town of Randolph; a position that does not require a civil service examination. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant's appeal was untimely and he did not provide sufficient reason to toll the time period for filing his appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- Issue of voluntary reinstatement when there is an active eligibility list.
- Appellant failed to state a claim upon which his appeal could be heard. His contention that he was prohibited from bidding on another position is not a subject matter for which the Commission has jurisdiction to hear. Appeal dismissed.
- HRD erroneously denied the Appellants the ability to sit for a promotional examination by misinterpreting Section 59 and an Appeals court decision. Appeals allowed.
- City properly calculated the Appellant's seniority date in decided which firefighters to lay off. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant is not an aggrieved person and the Commission opted not to exercise its discretion to order the relief requested.
- Joint request for retroactive seniority date as a permanent full-time police officer denied.
- Appellant could not show he was aggrieved through no fault of his own when he failed to take the physical abilities test administered by HRD despite being notified via email. Appeal dismissed.
- Where the Appellant claimed that the Personnel Administrator failed to act upon his request that HRD update the Classification Specification for the Tax Auditor I, II, III positions for the DOR, the Commission found that he had no standing to file an appeal because he had been aggrieved. Moreover, while HRD is required by statute to establish and maintain classification plans for Commonwealth employees, it is not required to do so under Chapter 31. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellants were able to show only that the Town improperly used "out-of-grade" appointments to fill lieutenant positions for a limited period. Relief granted commensurate with harm to three Appellants.
- Appeal dismissed as untimely.
- Appellant’s posting to East Boston High School was simply a move to a different geographical location which constituted a reassignment and not a transfer as required to gain protection under c. 31 Section 35. Thus, the Appellant lacked jurisdiction to bring forth the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant was on active military duty when his name appeared on 2 Certifications for the position of firefighter. Thus, he could not be considered for appointment. "310 Relief" granted. Appellant's name to appear at the top of the next Certification to ensure he is given at least one consideration for the position of firefighter in the City of Boston. Appeal allowed.
- On its own initiative, the Commission opened an investigation into the hiring of reserve police officers in the Fall of 2008.
- The Commission, own its own initiative, has opened up an investigation into the review and selection process related to reserve firefighters in the City of Methuen in 2008 and 2009.
Methuen Police Department Investigation Findings, Conclusions and Orders: Methuen's Review and Selection of Reserve Police Officers 8/20/09The process used to review and select reserve police officers in 2008 / 2009 violated civil service law and rules. Various orders entered by Commission as a result of investigation.
- The Commission refused to reopen an old case and grant the Appellant a retraoctive seniority date which he intended to use to buy creditable service toward his retirement. Request denied.
- Appellant sought review of the Medford Fire Departments decision not to allow him to retake HRDs physical abilities test after the City determined he lost the opportunity to re-take the PAT after failing his initial PAT and not retaking the PAT that same day. The Commission found that there was no evidence that HRD or the City actually required this practice. In fact, the HRD waiver form signed by the Appellant was specifically designed for applicants to waive their right to wait 16 weeks before re-taking the PAT. HRD ordered to reschedule and allow Appellant to retake the PAT.
- Appellant's request for relief denied as he could not show that he failed to appaer for required Physical Abilities Test through no fault of his own.
- The Commission set an interim order to HRD to allow Appellant to take a specific promotional examination as by not doing so would cause Appellant irreparable harm. Whether or not the results for that re-take examination can be used to include the Appellant in a subsequent eligibility would be determined in the final disposition of Appellant’s appeal before the Commission.
- Appellant had no right to appeal the Town’s decision to remove him from his assignment as Police Prosecutor position within the Norwell Police Department because he was never permanently promoted to such a position. The Appellant was a tenured police officer at all times even though he had been given a stipend and designated a non civil service position with the title of Police Prosecutor. Appeal dismissed.
Nee, John v. Human Resources Division 8/11/11 file size 1MBHRD's decision to deny the Appellant's appeal regarding his training and experience credit was well supported and the Appellant is not aggrieved. Examination appeal dismissed.
- The Town has agreed to stop using "out-of-grade" appointments which are not permitted under the civil service law. Relief granted to next sergeant to be appointed in the form of a retroactive seniority date.
- Appellant appealed the decision by the City to deny his benefits under the Leave with Pay for Incapacitated Employees general law section 111F. However, this type of dispute which would seem to turn on expert medical opinions about the nature of the employee’s injuries and whether the injuries are work related or not, is not typically handled by the Commission. It would be more logical for Appellant to seek relief with the Division of Industrial Accidents or other such agency. Appeal dismissed.
- The City had reasonable justification for discharging the Appellant for unauthorized leave of absence after denying a request for leave. In actuality, the Appellant was attempting to purchase retirement time credit for his military service by requesting the Commission reinstate him to his job for just one day before he retires. Additionally, his appeal was untimely by at least 18 months. Appeal dismissed.
- City violated civil service law by filling vacancies through out-of-grade appointments, as opposed to requesting a certification for temporary appointments. Relief granted to 1 Appellant who has shown that he was aggrieved.
- An Appellant is not entitled to receive the contributions made to their retirement account if they choose to remain employed by the City after being suspended. In this case, the Appellant was provided with accurate information from the City regarding that issue and made a voluntary decision to resign. The Appellant tendered his resignation and the City accepted, hence the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant challenged and requested an investigation into whether a police promotional exam was fair specifically regarding his education and experience scoring, but Appellant’s appeal was not timely filed with the Commission. Appeal dismissed.
- Superior Court Affirmed Commission's decision.
- Where the Appellant and his Firefighter Union have selected binding arbitration to grieve and assert that the Fitness for Duty evaluation was in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the Town of Watertown, the Commission has no jurisdiction to also hear the matter. Appeal dismissed.
- Termination appeal related to unauthorized leave of absence improperly before the Commission. Limited right of appeal to HRD. Appeal dimissed.
- The Appellant appealed his termination to the Commission which has no jurisdication to hear the appeal as the Appellant is not a tenured civil service employee. Rather, he was a provisional employee. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant and HRD filed a Joint Petition for relief under chapter 310 and after taking administrative notice of the history of the extensive prior Commission proceedings involving the civil service status of other former police officers in the now-defunct BMPD, the Commission found relief at that time was not warranted. Joint Petition denied.
- Appellant sought reinstatement to his former position in the Boston Municipal Police Department. The Commission found that since no available positions that existed at the time he made inquiry of HRD, he had no reinstatement rights under Section 46, and is not a person aggrieved in order to bring the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant's request for relief denied. He could not show that he was aggrieved through no fault of his own. Further, there was no vacacny to be filled prior to the expieration of the eligible list.
- Appellant who alleged that he was forced to resign had in truth entered into a settlement agreement with Boston Public Schools in which he, in exchange for $4000, agreed to resign his position as a senior custodian and release the Appointing Authority from any and all claims related to his employment. Consequently, the Commission would not override such a valid agreement. Appeal dismissed.
Oxford Reserve Police Officer Investigation 9/30/11 file size 1MB
- A Joint Motion for Relief was sought for Appellant who had subsequently passed a second Physical Abilities Test after being hired by the Town and told he needed to re-take the exam since too much time had lapse since his last PAT. The Commission so ordered HRD to establish Appellant’s civil service seniority date to the day he began performing duties as an Arlington Police Officer.
- Appellant appealed the decision by the Plymouth Police Dept. to terminate him due to Appellant allegedly producing sub-standard written work-product. The Commission determined that Appellant was on a probationary period commencing upon graduation, thus the delivery of termination letter by the Police Dept. failed to comply with the statutory requirements because it was two days after Appellant’s probationary period. Appeal allowed and Appellant to be reinstated to his position as patrolmen with no loss of pay and benefits.
- Appellants were members of the now-former Boston Municipal Police Dept. at the time of their appeals were filed, sought appointment to the Cambridge Police Dept. by way of lateral transfer, but it is the City’s prerogative to decide to do so. There is no affirmative obligation on the City to consent to a voluntary transfer request submitted by an employee. Appeals dismissed.
- Relates to procedural issues regarding the authorization and issuance of subpoenas.
- The Appellant has failed to show that, even if granted the E&E credit he is seeking, that it would have increased his overall test score. Thus, appeal is moot and dismissed.
- The City did not violate civil service law and rules regarding labor service promotions and demotions. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant's request for a retroactive seniority date was denied as they did not show that they were aggrieved and/or that there was any violation of civil service law. Their appeals relied on violations of the CBA. Appeals denied.
- Appellant claimed that she had a right to bump a provisional clerk/stenographer based on the positions in which they were tenured, but based upon a recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling Appellant did not have bumping rights. Appellant, based upon her higher seniority date in a lower title, does not give her a right to bump an individual from her provision position of clerk/stenographer. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellants have shown that their civil service seniority date should be the date upon which they began performing the duties of a full-time police officer in Lawrence. Appeal allowed.
- Termination appeal related to unauthorized leave of absence improperly before the Commission. Limited right of appeal to HRD. Appeal dimissed.
- The Appellant failed to notify HRD of an address changed. She is not aggrieved through no fault of her own. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant appealed Town’s decision to bypass him for appointment from Saugus’s roster of intermittent firefighters to a full-time position as a Saugus firefighter. The Commission concluded that Saugus chose a candidate who undisputedly ranked lower than Appellant on merit just eighteen months earlier, without any intervening performance experience to assess and without any reasons given. Appellant’s rights were adversely affected through not fault of his own. Appeal allowed.
- The Civil Service Commission only gained authority to hear cases pursuant to G.L. 22c Section 13 in May 13, 2002. Appellant in this case appealed the decision of the Dept. of State police to suspend him for 4 months, but was suspended two days prior to the date of the Commission gaining authority to hear such cases. Therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction over state police and the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
- In response to a petition for investigation into the HRD’s creation of the reading list for the police promotional examinations, the Commission found it was not appropriate to conduct an investigation. The Attorney for Appellants was actually seeking to see his own publication be placed on the HRD reading list all the while representing Appellants who may not have been aware of his potential financial interest, thus creating a potential conflict of interest.
Reardon, Tara v. City of Lawrence 2/23/12 file size 1MB
- Appellant's appeal untimely. Dismissed.
- Mr. Ramos was not considered for appointment as a firefighter due to an administrative error by the Springfield Fire Department. Relief granted; name on top of next Certification.
- Appellant can not complain that he was not promotionally appointed to the position of sergeant with the DOC when he was the one who failed to update his address with HRD in order to receive a card notifying him of the promotional opportunity. Appeal dismissed
- DTA complied with the civil service law and rules regarding provisional appointments. Bypass appeals dismissed. Commission is seeking additional information from DTA to determine if their is any merit to the complaints of non-selected candidates.
- Appellant sought to have the Commission determine whether the Town of Lexington complied with civil service laws (specifically Section 41 and 42) when they terminated him as a police officer. The Commission found that the Town complied with all procedural requirements including providing the Appellant with more than the statutorily-required 3 day notice of a disciplinary hearing. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant was not entitled to compensation for overtime and paid detail opportunities he allegedly missed while paid administrative leave. Appellant’s administrative leave was guided by the provisions of the relative collective bargaining agreement in place at the time, and interpreting provisions of a CBA is beyond the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction. Secondly, a good-faith decision by an Appointing Authority, particularly those charged with public safety, to place an employee on paid administrative leave or light duty, pending verification that the employee is fit for duty, can not be appealed to the Commission. Appeal dismissed.
- An appeal regarding whether a promotional examination for the position of lieutenant was a fair test must first be filed with the Human Resources Division in a timely manner. The Appellant here failed to fulfill the required prerequisite of seeking the administrator’s review prior to appealing to the Commission. Appeal dismissed.
- HRD must conduct a review of the PAT portion of the Appellant's firefighter examination to ensure it was scored properly. Appeal allowed in part.
- Appellant failed to show that he was transferred by the City from the Highway Division of Public Works to the Cemetery Dept. The responsibility of the Cemetery Dept. was placed under the Department of Public Services which allows the Director to perform the various duties as the cemetery commission may determine in the management of its cemeteries. The appellant remained an employee within the Dept. of Public Services, and was reassigned to perform cemetery related duties, not transferred. Since no transfer occurred Appointing Authority’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal allowed.
- The Appellant, a returning retiree, appealed the Citys requirement to complete retraining at his own expense in order to be reinstated as a police officer; however, the Commission found that Respondent was justified in its action. Despite being provided the opportunity by the Respondent to undertake or avail himself of the required retraining, he failed to do so. The Appellant did not make a genuine, good faith effort to apply for retraining. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant appealed the City’s decision to assign him certain custodial duties as a required part of his job duties of Water Services Inspector. The testimony provided showed that the written descriptions were never intended to be a complete catalogue of every single task that a person employed in a particular title may be called on to perform. There is nothing within the applicable civil service law or rules that mandate a change to the written MuniClass Manual or every time there is any change in the way the job is performed or the duties it encompasses evolve. Appeal dismissed.
- Appellant has no right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission when he received only a written warning as the Commission’s jurisdiction in discipline cases is limited to appeals who have been discharged, removed, or suspended, laid off or transferred from his position without written consent. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant, a permanent junior custodian, failed to show that he should have been appointed as a permanent senior custodian. Request for relief denied.
- Appellant is appealing a ruling by DOC and HRD that she was not eligible to sit for the CPO D promotional examination. In a partial disposition of the matter, the Commission ruled that c. 31, s. 59 does not apply here nor does the recent Appeals Court decision in Weinburgh. The one remaining issue is whether the time served as a provisional CPO C should count toward the requirement that candidates must have been employed in the next lower title for at least 12 months prior to taking the promotional examination. All parties given 30 days to file additional briefs on this issue.
- Relates to prior interim decision. Time served in a provisional capacity can not be used as a time in lower grade needed to qualify to sit for promotional examination. Appeal dismissed.
Stacy, Herbert v. City of Methuen 7/14/11 file size 1MB
St. Ives and Mello v. Lynn School Department 12/30/10 file size 5MBThe School Department must comply with civil service law and use permanent or temporary intermittent employees to fill positions currently occupied by "subsitute" cafeteria helpers.
- The City did not violate civil service law or rules when making labor servcie and official service promotions and demotions. Appeals dismissed.
- permanency for provisional employee
- police officer probationary period
- police officer probationary period
People also viewed...
You recently viewed...
Personalization is OFF. Your personal browsing history at Mass.gov is not visible because your personalization is turned off. To view your history, turn your personalization on.
Learn more on our .
*Recommendations are based on site visitor traffic patterns and are not endorsements of that content.