Lashonda Roberts, CSC Docket No. 2021-682

BackgroundLashonda Roberts appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that her position with Hillside is properly classified as Clerk 2. She seeks a Keyboarding Clerk 2 job classification in this proceeding.

The appellant was hired on September 9, 2013 as a Keyboarding Clerk 1, and filed an appeal for a classification review of her position in September 2020. Agency Services conducted a review of the appellant’s Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ) and determined that the position was properly classified as Clerk 2, effective October 10, 2020. This position is assigned to the Records Department of Hillside, is supervised by a Detective, and has no supervisory responsibility.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she uses the keyboard for a majority of her time, or uses a typewriter, as most of her tasks require some type of key entering and/or filing by computer. She states that for 45 to 60 minutes a day, she searches the database for firearms applications, prints applications, types and emails correspondents, contacts other agencies by typing requests, and uses a typewriter to type identification cards. For 3 to 5 hours of the day, in order to fulfill requests from the Prosecutor’s Office, she uses a program to view images of officers on screen. She then finds, uploads, and labels the video or information needed, and drafts a letter to forward it. She listens to transmissions on a program and saves calls related to events using key entry commands. She saves and maintains memory files, transfers transmissions onto CDs, and communicates with requesting parties. She states that she performs that all of these tasks independently, and her correspondence is not reviewed by a supervisor. She also scans documents, answers phones, prints reports, drafts and types correspondence, enters data regarding customer purchase of parking permits, reviews, edits and types corrections for applicants’ or detectives’ letters, gathers documents and reports for discovery, and attends to clients at the front window. She believes her duties are those of a Keyboarding Clerk 2.

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 Clerk 2 states:

Under limited supervision, performs clerical work involving the processing of documents in a variety of functions; performs moderately complex and non-routine clerical work; may provide guidance and assistance to other staff; does other related duties as required.

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; 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 provide guidance and assistance to staff; does other related duties as required.

AnalysisBased upon a thorough review of the information presented in the record, it is clear that the duties of the position match those of 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).

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

It is noted that the appellant’s PCQ was not completed properly. The PCQ requests the incumbent to describe the detail of the work, make clear descriptions so that persons unfamiliar with the work could understand exactly what is done, and provide a percentage of time and the order of difficulty for each of the duties. The percentages of time should add up to 100%, which accounts for all work time. The appellant listed 11 duties, five of which she indicated she performed 100% of the time, one performed 90% of the time, three performed 80% of the time, two performed 79% of the time, and one performed 50% of the time. The order of difficulty for each of the duties should have been from 1 to 11. The appellant did not give an order of difficulty for any of her duties. As a result, the amount of time she performed each duty, and the difficulty of each duty could not be analyzed.

In its decision, Agency Services indicated that a Keyboarding Clerk 2 spends the majority of time typing or operating keyboard equipment focusing on speed and accuracy. Agency Services indicated that the position includes keyboard entry, but that was not the primary responsibility of the position. Agency Services found that the appellant communicates with applicants for firearm permits in response to questions, inputs and confirms system information, corresponds with other agencies and prosecutor offices for file information and accurate reports, records and maintains case files and documentation and assists customers in obtaining records, uploads and “burns” police officer body camera and other car videos as well as 911 recordings and radio transmission for use by others, processes mail, scans documents, and assists in training staff.

The appellant’s argument that she uses a keyboard or typewriter for a majority of her of the time is misplaced. Personal computers are incorporated into virtually all jobs in today’s workplace. Many job specifications do not mention personal computers, however work assignments are generally affected by the presence of the personal computer. The appellant uses a personal computer in a majority of her duties, but this does not characterize the job responsibilities as keyboarding. A Keyboarding Clerk’s function revolves around properly entering information on computers, and performing data entry from documents and information. The position’s duties include clerical work involving the processing of documents in a variety of functions, and performing moderately complex and non-routine clerical work, which falls squarely within the definition of Clerk 2. In other words, the Clerk 2 title is clearly a better fit for the appellant’s duties than Keyboarding Clerk 2.

Accordingly, a thorough review of the entire record fails to establish that the appellant has presented a sufficient basis to warrant a Keyboarding Clerk 2 classification of her position.

ORDER

Therefore, the position of Lashonda Roberts is properly classified as Clerk 2.

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