- Under Section 39, a permanent civil service employee may bump beyond the next lower title in the series under certain circumstances in lieu of being laid off.
- The School Department has complied with a prior Commission decision regarding bumping rights and the Appellant is not aggrieved. Appeal dismissed.
Amaral, Faith et al v. City of Fall River 11/12/09 file size 1MBCity demonstrated that a lack of funds justified the layoff of dozens of police officers. Appeals dismissed.
- The Appointing Authority was within its rights to layoff the Appellant due to lack of money. The Appointing Authority did show that the layoff was for cost-saving purposes and that the Appellant was not licensed to do the work they needed done. The Appointing Authority was also within its rights to assign the Appellant’s duties to higher grade employees. Appeal dismissed.
Braz, Antonio v. New Bedford School Committee 12/16/10 file size 1MBThe Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's appeal as his permanent civil service position of Painter has not been affected. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appointing Authority showed just cause for laying off Appellant due to decreased funding because of budgetary cuts. They clearly showed that their financial situation deteriorated since making Appellant Project Manager and that by laying Appellant off, they have been able to save money and improve their financial situation. The Appointing Authority is able to eliminate the Appellant’s position but retain a higher level employee because his salary was fully funded by the government. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant must file an appeal of a decision to place him on disability retirement within ten days of the decision; twenty-three months is too long to wait and his appeal was thus moot. Appeal dismissed.
- The Appellant's permanent civil service status has not been affected. Appeal dismissed.
- The City complied with civil service law and rules and provided the Appellant with required bumping rights when they laid him off. Appeal dismissed.
- DEP failed to provide the Appellant with a notice or a hearing regarding his layoff. The Appellant has shown that he was prejudiced by this faillure to comply with the procedural requirements of the civil service law. Section 42 appeal allowed.
- The Appointing Authority showed that its abolishment of Appellant’s position was based on economic efficiency, which is a justifiable reason to abolish a position. The Authority monitored the work being done by the Appellant for several months, voted to terminate the position because it was not cost-effective, and followed up by monitoring how the abolishment of Appellant’s position affected the quality and efficiency of the employees who worked under him. Appeal dismissed.
- Section 33 of chapter 31 states that when the Appellant has been absent from a position for more than six months and returns, his length of service will be computed using the date of original hire only after he has had a period of continuous service for either three years or twice the length of his absence, whichever period is longer. If he has not met the continuous service requirement, his length of service will be computed using the date that he returned to the payroll following his absence.
- The Citiy and HRD correctly calculated the Appellant's civil service seniority date when determining who should be laid off. The Appellant's return to employment as a Police Officer after resigning from the Police Department to accept appointment as a full-time Firefighter in the Fire Department cannot be termed a "transfer" within the meaning of the Civil Service Law.
- The Appointing Authority provided the Appellant with all of her bumping rights as a permanent Senior Clerk Typist. Appeal dismissed.
The Appellant did now show that there was a political pretext associated with her layoff, which occurred as a result of lack of funds. Layoff appeal dismissed.
- DEP provided the Appellant with all bumping rights available to her as a permanent Accountant III.
- The City appropriately laid off the Appellant due to lack of funds after trying several other methods to save money before laying any employees off. The Appellant has no standing because she was the least senior employee and did not have bumping rights because the only employee under her had more seniority than she did; the Appellant also was offered a similar position, but turned it down for transportation reasons. The Appointing Authority is within its rights to use higher grade employees to assume the duties of a laid off employee. Appeal dismissed.
Morin, Paul v. Boston Public Schools 12/16/10 file size 1MBThe Commission lacks jurisdication to hear this appeal regarding the Appellan'ts layoff as he is not a permanent, tenured civil service employee. Appeal dismissed.
- Two Program Manager IVs had the right to be restored to their permanent civil service titles when they were laid off. Appeals allowed.
Ozella, Bruce v. City of Boston 4/7/11 file size 1MBA lack of funds and the need for efficiency justified the City's decision to lay off this long-term employee who was a Graphics Art Technician. Appeal dismissed.
- Appointing Authority complied with bumping rights provisions as they relate to disabled veterans.
Pike, Leo v. City of New Bedford 11/12/09 file size 1MBAppeal allowed in part as Appellant was not given proper notice of layoff while he was serving on active duty in the military.
- City correctly interpreted Section 33 when determining the civil service seniority of firefighters as part of a layoff process.
- Decision on Reconsideration.
- The Appointing Authority failed to provide the Appellant with her bumping rights based on her permanency in a lower title. Appeal allowed. Layoff overturned.
Tomashpol, Lisa v. Chelsea Soldiers Home 1/7/10 (Affirmed by Superior Court on 4/11/11) file size 4MBBumping rights for permanent civil service employees in official service position are limited to lower positions within the same title. Appeal Dismissed.
Walsh, Karen v. City of Worcester 4/21/11 file size 2MBThe City erred when it concluded that the Appellant had resigned from her position, based on nothing more than hearsay. Appeal allowed; Appellant to be restored to her position.