Amelia Cantelme, CSC Docket No. 2020-1198

BackgroundAmelia Cantelme appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that her position with Essex County is properly classified as Keyboarding Clerk 2. She seeks a Keyboarding Clerk 3 job classification in this proceeding.

The appellant was regularly appointed Keyboarding Clerk, a title in the non- competitive division, on February 6, 2006. Her position is assigned to the Department of Prosecutor’s Office, Essex County, is supervised by a Supervisor Criminal Records Information Records and has no supervisory responsibility. Agency Services conducted a review of the appellant’s position and, based on a review of her current duties, determined that her position was properly classified as Keyboarding Clerk 2, the effective April 15, 2019.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that her duties and assignments are specific to recording and processing criminal activities, court decisions, dispositions, public service and other actions furthering the goal of justice. She states that she proofreads dismissals of charges for spelling and format for Assistant Prosecutors, ensures that data is inputted correctly, accurately and completely, completes documents and forms, corrects discrepancies in paperwork, and performs follow-ups with jails so released defendants can go home. She states that she receives and directs correspondence, retrieves and maintains files, removes duplicate charges, corrects Live Scan errors and other errors, receives payments, delivers requests, places requests, and examines files and forwards information. She argues that her tasks carry a lot of responsibility.

She states that people who assist with administrative dismissals are trained by her and ask her how to do tasks, or for her opinion. She states that she does not assist in supervising student interns, but supervises them herself. She plans their work and instructs them what to do each day, assigns work, monitors their progress and focuses them to their work, coaches them, distributes work and collects it, and determines the duties in which students excel and advises the Office Supervisor.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e) states that in classification appeals, the appellant shall provide copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or argument which was not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered.

The definition section of the job specification for Keyboarding Clerk 2 states:

Under limited supervision, performs moderately complex and non- routine clerical work involving the processing of documents in a variety of functions; performs moderately complex and non-routine clerical work requiring the utilization of keyboarding or typing skills; formats, reproduces, corrects, adjusts and prints a variety of written material;

Analysiskey enters/types correspondence, documents, reports, charts and other materials on a computer console, typewriter, or other key entry device used by the agency; may provide guidance and assistance to staff; does other related duties as required.

RuleThe definition section of the job specification for Keyboarding Clerk 3 states:

Under direction, performs varied, complex clerical work involving the processing of documents in a variety of functions; takes the lead and/or performs the more difficult and complex clerical work requiring the utilization of keyboarding or typing skills and the application of independent judgment; formats and key enters/types correspondence, documents, reports, charts and other materials on a computer console, typewriter, or other key entry device used by the agency; may take the lead over other clerical employees; does other related duties as required.

AnalysisBased upon a thorough review of the information presented in the record, the duties of the position match those of Keyboarding Clerk 2. At the outset, the classification of a position is determined based on the duties and responsibilities assigned to a position at the time the request for reclassification is received as verified by audit or other formal study. The outcome of position classification is not to provide a career path to the incumbents, but rather is to ensure that the position is classified in the most appropriate title available within the State’s classification plan. 1 How well or efficiently an employee does his or her job, length of service, volume of work and qualifications have no effect on the classification of a position currently occupied, as positions, not employees are classified. See In the Matter of Debra DiCello (CSC, decided June 24, 2009).

The primary determinant in the appellant’s classification review was that she was not a lead worker. A leadership role refers to those persons whose titles are non-supervisory in nature, but are required to act as a leader of a group of employees in titles at the same or a lower level than themselves. Duties and responsibilities would include training, assigning and reviewing work of other employees on a regular and recurring basis, such that the lead worker has contact with other employees in an advisory position. However, such duties are considered non-supervisory since they do not include the responsibility for the preparation of performance evaluations. Being a lead worker does not mean that the work is performed by only one person, but involves mentoring others in work of the title series. See In the Matter of Henry Li (CSC, decided March 26, 2014).

The appellant maintains that she has lead worker duties. Her supervisor indicates that she trains new personnel on Administrative Dismissals and Arraignments, but that she is not the only person who trains new personnel. The supervisor indicates that the appellant assists each newcomer with training on all general office procedures of the Records Unit with preparing such things as discovery, specialized assignments (administrative dismissals and arraignments), filing, and reception/phone. Nonetheless, lead worker duties must be performed on a consistent and daily basis, not merely intermittently as needed, and the job definition specifically mentioned that lead work had to be taken over clerical employees. The appellant plans and monitors work of student interns who work from 10am to 2pm for two days each week, and occasional new hires. Additionally, her supervisor explained that the students are supervised by their Counselor who travels with them each week and by her, and that the appellant assists by planning and monitoring the work of the student interns. Assignments to student interns include putting cases and paperwork to be filed inside the cases in order. This is only one aspect of the appellant’s duties, and she is not mentoring these individuals in the totality of her work, nor is it on a consistent and daily basis.

The appellant instructs new employees on administrative dismissals and arraignments; however, once trained, those individuals report to the supervisor. Her assistance to others is not performed on a consistent and daily basis. As such, the record does not support that the appellant is performing lead worker duties in clerical work on a consistent basis.

1 See In the Matter of Patricia Lightsey (MSB, decided June 8, 2005), aff’d on reconsideration (MSB, decided November 22, 2005).

Accordingly, a thorough review of the entire record fails to establish that the appellant has presented a sufficient basis to warrant a Keyboarding Clerk 3 classification of her position.

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.