13 Mass. App. Ct. 20 | Mass. App. Ct. | 1982
The Commissioner (appointing authority) of the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) brought a
We summarize the facts as disclosed by the record. McDonald was hired by the MDC in August, 1954, as a clerk-storekeeper at the Nut Island sewage treatment plant. He subsequently became a principal storekeeper at the same facility, and the charges against him relate to his employment in that capacity. In 1976 the appointing authority brought four charges against him in regard to his conduct of the office of principal storekeeper, and after a hearing on January 26, 1977, held pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 43(a)
McDonald appealed the discharge to the commission pursuant to G. L. c. 31, § 43(b). A hearing was conducted before a hearing officer designated by the commission as authorized by § 43(b). The hearing officer filed a compre
By statute, the commission could modify any penalty imposed by the appointing authority. G. L. c. 31, § 43(b). Therefore, it could have rejected the hearing officer’s recommendation as to disposition and rested its own decision on the accepted subsidiary findings, as long as its decision could be justified on the basis of those findings. Commissioner of Rev. v. Lawrence, 379 Mass. 205, 209 (1979). In this matter, the commission adopted all seventeen subsidiary findings made by the hearing officer. There is not a
Because there is nothing in the accepted findings to justify the reduction of the penalty from discharge to suspension, the judge was correct in affirming the decision of the appointing authority.
Judgment affirmed.
In 1978, c. 31 was rewritten. See St. 1978, c. 393. The provisions for a hearing before the appointing authority are now found in G. L. c. 31, § 41. References in this opinion will be to the former version of G. L. c. 31, § 43, which was in effect at the time of the hearings before the appointing authority and the commission.
The hearing officer found the employee guilty of the following:
Charge 1. Despite verbal and written directions to complete a stockroom inventory and to bring the records to date, Mr. McDonald neglected to perform such work.
Charge 2. On May 13, 1976, an inspection of the stockroom and records under McDonald’s control revealed that there was: (a) a lack of inventory cards to indicate items received or dispensed; (b) a failure to make entries on inventory cards to indicate how or when materials were dispersed; (c) a failure to identify stock locations on inventory cards or when a location was noted, a failure to locate the items as shown.
Charge 3. While under Mr. McDonald’s control, the stock and supplies in the stockroom were, to a great degree, improperly stored and the general area of the stockroom was in disarray.
Charge 4. Mr. McDonald disregarded his responsibilities and failed to perform the duties as a principal storekeeper despite the requests and directions of his superiors to organize the stores and supplies and to bring his records up to date.