Decision  Bourbeau, Kevin v. UMass Amherst 12/18/25

Date:	12/18/2025
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	C-25-228

• Appellant: Kevin Bourbeau
• Appearance for Respondent: Rachel Siano
• Hearing Officer: Christopher C. Bowman

The Commission dismissed the reclassification appeal of a UMass Amherst employee as he had no reasonable expectation of showing that he performed the duties of the requested classification of Institutional Maintenance Foreman a majority of the time. 

Decision on City's Motion for Summary Decision

Procedural Background

On September 29, 2025, the Appellant, Kevin Bourbeau (Appellant), an employee at UMass Amherst (UMass), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting the decision of UMass and the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to deny his request for reclassification from Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist (CRSS) to Institutional Maintenance Foreman (IMF). On November 4, 2025, I held a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant, his union representative, and a representative of UMass.   That same day, I issued a Procedural Order giving UMass the opportunity to submit a motion for summary decision and for the Appellant to submit a reply.  UMass subsequently submitted a motion for summary decision and the Appellant did not submit a reply.

Undisputed Facts

               The following is undisputed unless otherwise noted:

1. In or around 2014, the Appellant was appointed by UMass as a Maintenance Technician II (MT II).
2. In 2019, the Appellant filed a prior request for reclassification with UMass seeking to be reclassified as a Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist (CRSS), the title held by the Appellant’s then-supervisor.
3. In 2021, UMass denied the Appellant’s prior request for reclassification and the Appellant filed an appeal with the Commission.
4. As part of that prior appeal before the Commission, UMass argued that the Appellant should be classified as a Locksmith, which carries a lower pay grade.
5. While the Appellant’s prior appeal was pending before the Commission, the Appellant’s supervisor, a CRSS, retired; the Appellant was promoted to that title in or around 2022; and his appeal before the Commission was effectively dismissed as moot.
6. On July 31, 2024, the Appellant filed a new request for reclassification with UMass, seeking to be reclassified to the title of Institutional Maintenance Foreman (IMF), the same title as his current supervisor.
7. The basic purpose of the work of an IMF is to monitor the maintenance and repair of buildings and related structures at state institutions.
8. According to the 1987 job specifications approved by the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD), incumbents of the IMF position exercise direct supervision (i.e., not through an intermediate level supervisor) over, assign work to and review the performance of 6-15 personnel; and indirect supervision (i.e., through an intermediate level supervisor) over 6-15 personnel.
9. After review, UMass concluded: that the Appellant did not perform any of the level distinguishing duties of an IMF; that he was improperly classified as a CRSS; and proceeded to reclassify him to Locksmith, but “red-circled” the position which effectively means that the Appellant will be grandfathered in his current higher pay grade (associated with the CRSS position) and UMass will backfill his position via a Locksmith posting when the Appellant vacates the position.   As part of the pre-hearing conference, UMass stated that, in retrospect, it was an error to post the position as a CRSS.
10. The basic purpose of the work of a Locksmith is to install, repair and replace locks and locking devices and make keys.
11. HRD affirmed the decision of UMass and the Appellant filed an appeal with the Commission, arguing that he should be reclassified to the title of IMF, as requested in his most recent appeal to UMass.
12. Based on a review of the documentation submitted by the Appellant as well as his statements at the pre-hearing conference, the Appellant’s primary responsibilities include the installation, repair and replacement of locks and locking devices within residence halls and campus buildings.
13. Further, based on the information provided by the Appellant, while the Appellant provides on-the-job training to other locksmiths and assists his supervisor with performing back-up scheduling duties, these duties do not constitute the type of supervisory duties required of an IMF.

Summary Disposition Standard

The Commission may, on motion or upon its own initiative, dismiss an appeal at any time for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3). A motion to resolve an appeal before the Commission, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be filed pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h). An appeal may be disposed of, however, on summary disposition only when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”, the undisputed material facts affirmatively demonstrate that the non-moving party has “no reasonable expectation” of prevailing on at least one “essential element of the case”. See, e.g., Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Board, 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (“The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass.R.Civ.P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.”); Morehouse v. Weymouth Fire Dept, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . there is no genuine issue of fact relating to his or her claim or defense and the party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”)

Analysis

While the Appellant performs an important role at UMass, he has no reasonable expectation of showing that he performs the duties and responsibilities of an IMF a majority of the time as he does not perform bona fide supervisory duties and he is not responsible for the overall maintenance and supervision of building facilities.  Rather, his duties are focused on installing and maintaining locks and locking devices. Even if I were to credit the Appellant’s claim that he supervises two other locksmiths, this would not bring the Appellant within the ambit of the IMF classification specifications.

Conclusion

The motion for summary decision submitted by UMass is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number C-25-228 is hereby dismissed.

Civil Service Commission

/s/ Christopher Bowman

Christopher C. Bowman
Chair

By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on December 18, 2025.

Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case.  A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision.

Under the provisions of G.L c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision.  After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d).

Notice to:
Kevin Bourbeau (Appellant)
Rachel Siano (for Respondent)