Aileen Ojeda, CSC Docket No. 2020-1112

BackgroundAileen Ojeda appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Principal Payroll Clerk (PC0609A), Camden County.

The subject promotional examination had a closing date of May 21, 2019 and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date as a Senior Payroll Clerk, OR to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title, and who met the announced requirements of two years of experience in work involving payroll processing or personnel work. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. There was one eligible applicant, and the list has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

On her application and resume, the appellant listed five positions; Payroll Clerk-Police Aide from January 2015 to May 2019; Office Manager with Oaks Integrated Services; Customer Service Representative with American Signature Furniture; Correctional Officer with Tacoma Correctional Institution; and Administrative Assistant/Accounting Clerk with Steelmaster Industries. Official records indicate a different employment history. These records indicate that the appellant was regularly appointed to Payroll Clerk in June 2019, after the closing date, and prior to that was a Police Aide from January 2015 to May 2019. The appellant had indicated that she was working out-of-title as a Principal Payroll Clerk while in her Police Aide title. Agency Services contacted the appointing authority who did not respond. None of her experience was accepted and she was found to be lacking three years of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she has been in the Payroll Department as a Payroll Clerk since April 2016. In support, she attaches a letter dated May 20, 2019 from the Division Head of County Operations to the union which recommended the appellant’s promotion to Payroll Clerk after a review of the duties and responsibilities assigned. She submits a union document which is a survey about her position, and includes the duties of her position. She indicated on this document that she did not file for a classification review. She also included a list of current duties, a letter of recognition dated January 2019 regarding payroll duties, a resume, and emails regarding work.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides in pertinent part that applicants for promotional examinations with open competitive requirements may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process, unless good cause is shown for an exception.

AnalysisThe Division of Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination. Agency Services contacted the appointing authority for verification of out-of-title duties, and it chose not to respond. As a result of this appeal, the appointing authority was contacted again, and it indicated that the appellant did not have two years of out-of-title work which would justify a response. As such, a basis for accepting out-of-title experience has not been presented. As the appointing authority has not supported the appellant’s claim of out-of-title work, the appellant lacks two years of qualifying experience.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

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