Louis Di Paoloand Christie Neve, CSC Docket No. 2019-1172, 2019-1173

eee

BackgroundLouis Di Paolo and Christie Neve request reconsideration of the final decision rendered on September 5, 2018, which upheld the determinations of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that their positions with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) are properly classified as Conferee 1, Taxation. A copy of that decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein.! They seek Conferee 2, Taxation job classifications in this proceeding. These requests have been consolidated due to common issues presented.

By way of background, the petitioners requested classification reviews in late 2017 seeking Conferee 2, Taxation job classifications. Agency Services received the requests and performed a review of all submitted information, including Position Classification Questionnaires (PCQs) and Performance Assessment Reviews (PARs). Agency Services determined that the petitioners’ assigned duties and responsibilities were commensurate with the title of Conferee 1, Taxation. The petitioners appealed Agency Services’ determinations to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), which upheld those determinations.

Appellant's argumentIn his request for reconsideration, Di Paolo states that the Conferee 2, Taxation title was established as an “R” Employee Relations Group title prior to the Commission’s determination that such titles have a supervision requirement. He states that the title has not previously been utilized with any formal supervisory significance and has not been tested via the Supervisory Test Battery (STB) in the

' William Henry did not file a request for reconsideration.

past. He also points to the minutes of the former Merit System Board’s (MSB) meeting of November 24, 1998, which describe Treasury's request for the creation of the two-level Conferee, Taxation title series. That request indicated that individuals serving in the title of Conferee 1, Taxation would perform basic appeal conferences and assist individuals serving in the title of Conferee 2, Taxation. Di Paolo asserts that the Commission’s prior decision was rendered “by fiat.”

In her request for reconsideration, Neve proffers that In the Matter of Tina Elbertson and Allison Sheppard (CSC, decided March 9, 2017), which the Commission cited in the prior decision, is inapplicable to her case. In addition, she states that the organizational structure of the Conference and Appeals Branch does not use the Conferee 2, Taxation title in supervisory roles. Neve contends that a discrepancy between the Commission and Treasury regarding how the title is supposed to be used should not outweigh how the title has been used and continues to be used. It also should not preclude advancement or be used as a roadblock for employees who have taken on additional responsibilities, in her view. Neve asserts that it is unfair to deny her the requested classification when the Conferee 2, Taxation title was never intended by Treasury to be a supervisory title. Further, Neve contends that a supervision requirement for the Conferee 2, Taxation title runs counter to the minutes of the MSB’s meeting of November 24, 1998. Neve states that the Conference and Appeals Branch operated for many years with no supervisory requirement for the Conferee 2, Taxation title. She also argues that the revision to the job specification for Conferee 2, Taxation ordered in Elbertson and Sheppard? should not be applied “retroactively” to her. Specifically, Neve states that the examination she previously took for the title, in November 2014, was not administered via the STB and the job specification that was in place at the time of that examination and at the time of the classification review did not reflect a supervision requirement.

Both petitioners again complain that the chosen method of classification review, a paper review, was inadequate.

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A4:2-1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which a prior decision may be reconsidered. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding, which would change the outcome of the case, and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding. A review of the record in these matters reveals that reconsideration is not justified.

Neve's contention that Elbertson and Sheppard is inapplicable is meritless. Elbertson and Sheppard sought Conferee 2, Taxation job classifications, the same

* Agency Services revised the job specification, effective September 15, 2018.

remedy sought by the petitioners. The Commission clearly found, for the reasons explained in that decision, that the title of Conferee 2, Taxation is supervisory. It noted that a supervisor has long been defined as an incumbent who is responsible for performing performance evaluations of subordinate staff as such authority is the means by which it can be demonstrated that a supervisor can exercise his or her authority to recommend hiring, firing and disciplining of subordinate employees. Among other things, the Commission stated:

[T]he hierarchical nature of the State Classification Plan requires a supervisor title in a specific series to supervise subordinate level titles within that series. Therefore, it would not be logical for a Conferee 2,

Taxation to satisfy the supervisory responsibilities for this title by supervising an employee who is not primarily performing Conferee duties.

As Elbertson and Sheppard did not sign subordinate PARs for at least one Conferee subordinate, the Commission found that their positions could not be classified as Conferee 2, Taxation. It is apparent from this discussion that the decision in Elbertson and Sheppard, supra, was directly applicable to the petitioners’ cases, and the Commission appropriately relied upon it in deciding the petitioners’ cases.

The petitioners’ citation to a 1998 meeting of the MSB and statements that the Conferee 2, Taxation title has not previously been used in a supervisory capacity or been tested via the STB are unpersuasive. In this regard, N.J.S.A. 11A:3-1(a) and N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2(a) provide that the Commission shall establish, administer, amend and continuously review a State classification plan governing all positions in State service. N.JA.C. 4A:3-3.1(b)1 provides that positions shall be assigned by the Commission and be assigned the title which describes the duties and responsibilities to be performed and the level of supervision exercised and received. N.dJ.A.C. 4A:3-3.3(a)3 provides, in pertinent part, that this agency shall modify specifications for existing titles to ensure their accuracy. As such, the Commission was not bound by any previous use of, or mode of testing, the Conferee 2, Taxation title as it clearly possesses the authority to continuously review the State classification plan, assign the level of supervision exercised, and modify specifications. The job specification now clearly indicates the supervisory nature of the Conferee 2, Taxation title. Moreover, the outcome of position classification is not to provide a career path to the incumbent but rather to ensure that the position is classified in the most appropriate title available within the State classification plan. See In the Matter of Patricia Lightsey (MSB, decided June 8, 2005), aff'd on reconsideration (MSB, decided November 22, 2005). Neve’s advancement is thus an insufficient basis on which to grant her a Conferee 2, Taxation job classification. She is not precluded from pursuing other avenues for advancement, such as applying for promotional opportunities.

The Commission rejects Neve’s argument that the revision to the job specification for Conferee 2, Taxation ordered in Elbertson and Sheppard, supra, is being applied to her retroactively. While it is true that the job specification was not revised until September 15, 2018, the Commission had clearly already found the Conferee 2, Taxation title to be supervisory in Elberison and Sheppard, supra, itself, and that decision was rendered in March 2017 before Neve’s request for a classification review of her position later that year.

The Commission also rejects Di Paolo’s contention that its prior decision was rendered “by fiat.” Rather, it was based on a review of documentation in the record, including the petitioners own PCQs and PARs. Although the petitioners again complain that the chosen method of classification review, a paper review, was inadequate, the Commission reiterates that a paper review is an acceptable method of conducting a classification review. See N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(c)8. Moreover, it is not apparent how a different method would have changed the outcomes of the reviews as it remains that the record indicates that the petitioners did not supervise at the time of the classification reviews, and they do not even assert that they did.

Accordingly, the petitioners have not presented a sufficient basis for reconsideration of the Commission’s prior decision.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these requests for reconsideration be denied.

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