Michael Conrad, CSC Docket No. 2018-701

ee ee

Michael Conrad, Christopher D’Andrea, Miguel Matos, Paul Morales, Sharonda Murrell and Michael Ripp request that that their working test periods and those of John Geoghegan and Christopher Yurecko in the County Correction Captain and County Correction Lieutenant titles, respectively, be waived. Conrad, D'Andrea, Morales, Murrell and Ripp also request that they and Matos, Geoghegan and Yurecko receive retroactive appointment dates to the County Correction Captain and County Correction Lieutenant titles, respectively.| These appeals have been consolidated due to common issues presented by the appellants.

it is noted that the appellants refer to In the Matter of County Correction Captain (PC1I89P) and County Lieutenant (PC1202P), Hudson County (CSC, decided June 7, 2017), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. The facts of this matter are thoroughly discussed in the attached decision and will not be reiterated herein. It is further noted that subsequently, Conrad, Geoghegan and Yurecko received regular appointments to the County Correction Captain title effective October 2, 20172 and D’Andrea, Matos. Morales, Murrell and Ripp received

1 NJAC. 44:2-1.1(e) provides that a party in an appeal may be represented by an attorney, authorized union representative or authorized appointing authority representative. As such, it is not clear whether the appellants, given that they have not identified themsclves as authorized union representatives, have standing to file the subject requests on behalf of other candidates. Moreover, it is noted that Geoghegan filed a request for reconsideration. See In the Matter of John Geoghegan (CSC, decided January 16, 2019}.

* Conrad, Geoghegan and Yurecko appeared on the County Correction Captain (PC2530T) eligible list which was certified on September 1, 2017 (Certification No. PL171075).

regular appointments to the County Correction Lieutenant title effective October 2, 2017.3

BackgroundRegarding their requests to waive their working test periods. the appellants refer to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-5.1(b)3! and maintain that “although the Appellate Court . reversed the decision of the Commission and we [were] returned to our previous titles, we held the titles of Captain and Lieutenant for a little over 20 months. Our names can be removed from [the PC1189P and PC1202P] promotional list{[s] but the training and experience gained cannot... All eight individuals removed from the previous lists (PC1189P) and (PC1202P) halve] successfully passed the new promotional test[s] and all appear on the (PC2530T) and (PC2556T) lists... We have held those titles on a permanent basis within our current continuous service[. We] petition that the Commission wa[i]ve the ninety|-]day working test period for the eight individuals affected by [In the Matter of County Correction Captain (PC1189P) and County Lieutenant (PC1202P), Hudson County, supra).

Appellant's argumentWith regard to their requests for retroactive appointment dates, the appellants argue that since they “previously held those titles on a permanent basis within our current continuous service[, we] petition the Commission to grant those eight individuals a retroactive appointment date.”5

It is noted that the appointing authority was contacted regarding this matter and indicated that “the County takes no position on this matter...”

CONCLUSION

A retroactive appointment date “for seniority purposes only” may be approved when it is evidenced that an appellant could have been appointed on the subject

’D’Andrea, Matos, Morales, Murrell and Ripp appeared on the County Correction Lieutenant (PC2556T) eligible list which was certified on September 1. 2017 (Certification No. PL171074).

' N.dA.C. 4A:4-5,1 provides, in pertinent part: (a) The working test period is part of the examination process designed to permit an appointing authority to determine whether an employee can satisfactorily perform the duties of the title. (b) All regular appointments to a title in the career service shall be subject to a working test period, except:

1. Appointments from special, police. sheriff's officer. fire, and regular reemployment lists;

2. Appointments to a comparable or lower related title in lieu of layoff:

3. Appointments to titles previously held on a permanent basis within current permanent continuous service: or

4. For lateral title changes, see N.J.A.C. 4A:1-7.6(b). (c) During the working test period, an employee shall perform the duties of the title for which appointment was made,

‘It is noted that the appellants do not indicate any specific dates in their requests.

date, but through error on the part of either the appointing authority or the Civil Service Commission, received a later appointment date, or for other good cause. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-1.10(c). The “for seniority purposes only” appointment designation establishes that an appellant has no claim for or entitlement to back pay. However, such an award establishes that for seniority-based programs, such as salary step placement, layoffs, and vacation leave time entitlement, seniority is predicated upon the retroactive appointment date. See In the Matter of Wayne A. Robbins (Merit System Board, decided Septemher 5, 1991).

In the present matter, the Appellate Division ordered the removal of the affected individuals’ names from the PC1189P and PC1202P lists, respectively, finding that they were not eligible for the subject tests. Since the Appellate Division determined that their appointments were erroncous, the appellants did not hold those titles on a permanent basis for Civil Service purposes. Given that the appellants, as noted above, have not identified the dates they are seeking, the Commission cannot address any specific concerns herein. Morcover, the appointing authority has not provided any support or further information in this matter.

With respect to the working test period, as noted above, for Civil Service purposes, the appellants did not hold permanent status based on_ their appointments from the PC1189P and PC1202P lists. respectively. As such, the appellants’ reliance on NJ.A.C. 4A:4-5.1(b)3 is misplaced. Given that the appellants received regular appointments to and have been performing the duties of their respective titles since October 2, 2017, this issue is moot.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these appeals be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.