Edward Collins, CSC Docket No. 2021-304

BackgroundEdward Collins appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that his position with the Union County is properly classified as Building Maintenance Worker. The appellant seeks a Maintenance Repairer job classification in this proceeding.

The appellant received a regular appointment as a Building Maintenance Worker, a non-competitive title, on October 29, 2016. In June 2019, he requested a classification review of his position located in the Department of Engineering Public Works Facilities, Union County. The appellant reports to a Supervising Maintenance Repairer and does not have supervisory responsibilities. Agency Services conducted a review of his position classification questionnaire (PCQ) and other documentation, and the classification review determined that the appellant’s position was properly classified as Building Maintenance Worker.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that his responsibilities are above that of physical tasks and general maintenance cleaning. He states that he performs masonry, carpentry, painting, plumbing, “mechanical,” ceiling tile, lighting replacement, removal and installation of carpet and vinyl flooring. He provides additional duties which he states were inadvertently omitted from his original PCQ. These duties include driving a forklift, using a Genie lift, snowplowing and snow blowing, inspecting and diagnosing problems, planning repair work, assembling and breaking down machinery, equipment and furniture, manually moving and lifting heavy objects, assisting management, and maintaining detailed work schedules and records. He provides a few fieldwork forms in support of his duties, and a letter from the Director, Division of Facilities Management who supports this appeal.

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 if 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 Maintenance Repairer states:

Under direction, performs a variety of routine maintenance and repair tasks involved in masonry, plastering, carpentry, painting, plumbing, steam fitting, sheet metal, electrical, glazing, mechanical, and/or other types of maintenance work; does related work.

The definition section of the job specification for Building Maintenance Worker states:

Under direction of a supervisory official, performs varied simple and moderately physically strenuous tasks involved in cleaning and maintaining offices, furniture, buildings, and grounds; may assist in making minor repairs to buildings or equipment; does other related duties as required.

AnalysisBased upon a review of the information presented in the record, the appellant’s position is properly classified as Building Maintenance Worker. Agency Services found that the appellant’s primary duties were cleaning rooms, offices and restrooms; landscaping and power cleaning; assisting carpenters, electricians, painters, HVAC and plumbers with various tasks including painting, changing electrical installations, and flooring.; moving and replacement of furniture; and operating various types of equipment including pickup trucks, street sweepers, snow blowers, ice spreaders, power washers, lawn mowers, weed whackers, and leaf blowers.

On appeal, the appellant provides additional duties and argues that the work is more properly characterized as Maintenance Repairer. The PCQ gives the appellant clear instructions to provide, in detail, the duties performed and the justification as to why these duties are more appropriate for the requested title. In this regard, Agency Services properly evaluated this position based on the information provided. Agency Services did not have the opportunity to review these additional duties at the time of the classification review and therefore they cannot be considered on appeal pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e). See In the Matter of Dolores Houghton (Commissioner of Personnel, decided October 6, 1993). Further, even if they had been considered, these additional details to not establish that the duties rise to the level of a Maintenance Repairer. In this regard, some of the duties provided on appeal were on the PCQ. It is also noted that recommendations from superiors are not determinative for classification review.

The majority of his duties fall directly into the Building Maintenance Worker definition. The appellant indicated that he performed maintenance duties for 40% of his time. His remaining duties involved assisting, rather than performing, repairs to buildings or equipment. For example, a Building Maintenance Worker may assist carpenters, electricians, painters, plumbers, and steam fitters by carrying tools and materials, by placing and removing ladders, by cleaning up after work has been done, preparing areas, and by doing other varied tasks of a simple nature. Also, the incumbent may move and control heavy equipment, carry and set up ladders and scaffolding, and work from ladders and scaffolds to change light bulbs, replace venetian blinds, or tape areas for painting. A Building Maintenance Worker may make minor repairs to the heating, electrical, and other systems of varied types of buildings, and service bathrooms and restrooms.

The appellant’s HVAC work includes replacing filters, removing and replacing air conditioner window units and securing brackets. This does not rise to the level of repair of HVACs. His plumbing duties include unclogging drains, assisting with replacement of sinks, faucets and toilets, cleanup, and replacing sink washers. This falls squarely in the job definition for Building Maintenance Worker, as the appellant is assisting in making minor repairs to buildings or equipment, not performing the work himself. The appellant’s carpentry experience consists of putting in new door hinges and locks, measuring, cutting and hanging ceiling tile, and replacing broken glass. These are minor repairs, and the appellant does not perform all phases of carpentry including planning, material purchasing, construction and finishing. His “painting” includes preparing walls and ceilings by cleaning, scraping, spackling and sanding, patching and repairing damaged plaster, and taping edges. The appellant does not indicate that he actually paints. For electrical duties, he assists electricians, replaces light bulbs, fuses, wall plates, fixture cords, ceiling fans and wall switches. In carpet and flooring, he prepares the room for the upgrade by moving furniture, and removing the old carpet or flooring, laying glue, and installing stair treads. Again, these duties assist the journeyman, and do not rise and level and scope of the duties of a Maintenance Repairer. While he claims on appeal that he does masonry work, this was not evident in the duties submitted to Agency Services. It is unclear what “mechanical” duties the appellant refers to in his appeal as he provided no examples of that type of work. The majority of the appellant’s duties are consistent with Building Maintenance Worker.

Accordingly, a thorough review of the entire record fails to establish that the appellant has presented a sufficient basis to warrant a Maintenance Repairer classification of his position.

ORDER

Therefore, the position of Edward Collins is properly classified as a Building Maintenance Worker.

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