Roseanne Amari, CSC Docket No. 2022-2093

Roseanne Amari, Justin Briel, Keith Bussey, Dequann Douglas, Kyle Ficci, Robert Gould, Vincent Hart, Sheri Johnson, Delores McClinton, Matthew McTamney, Michael Pierce, John Ralph, Marz Rodriguez, Ricardo Ruiz, Joseph Tomlinson, and Devonte Wingfield, represented by Lisa Ciccone, Business Representative, Local 195, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), request that the Civil Service Commission (Commission) adjust their salaries to Step 4 of their respective salary ranges. These appeals have been consolidated due to common issues presented.

BackgroundAs background, the appellants were appointed to the title of Guard in 2019 and 2021 as new employees and were placed on Step 1 of salary range I9. Amari, Bussey, Douglas, Gould, Hart, Johnson, McTamney, Ralph, Rodriguez, and Wingfield are currently at Step 3 of the salary range; Pierce and Ruiz are currently at Step 2 of the salary range; Briel, Ficci, and Tomlinson separated from State service in 2022, at which time they were at Step 3 of the salary range; and McClinton separated from State service in 2022, at which time she was at Step 2 of the salary range.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Commission, the appellants request that Civil Service compensation rules be relaxed to allow a one-time movement to Step 4 of the salary range that would greatly boost their low morale and provide parity with later- appointed Guards who started at Step 4.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the appointing authority states, among other things, that the compensation rules allow it to place new employees at a salary range up to Step 4 under certain circumstances, such as when it experiences recruitment difficulties. This practice, the appointing authority maintains, has no bearing on previous new employees who accepted a lower salary at the time of their appointments.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.4(a) provides that an appointing authority may place a new employee at a salary step up to and including the fourth step of the salary range for the employee’s title. A new employee, for purposes of this section, is one who has had no immediate prior State service with that appointing authority.

AnalysisThe appellants have the burden of proof in these matters. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2- 1.4(c).

In these matters, the appellants, all of whom were new employees initially placed on Step 1 of their salary range, seek parity with later-appointed employees who started at Step 4. However, there is nothing in N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.4(a) that indicates that when an appointing authority uses its discretion under the regulation, that all other prior hires must have their salaries adjusted to the step of the new employee or employees who received an appointment at a higher salary step when appointed. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Kowalski, et al. (CSC, decided February 12, 2020), aff’d on reconsideration, In the Matter of Jeffrey Kowalski, et al. (CSC, decided April 29, 2020). The appellants represent that they are experiencing low morale. Regrettable as that may be, it is not evidence that the appointing authority abused the discretion it is afforded under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.4(a). In fact, it appears that the appointing authority used that discretion to address recruitment difficulties. There is nothing invidious about this. Accordingly, the Commission declines the appellants’ request to move to Step 4. Nevertheless, the appellants may request additional compensation via a one-time lump sum salary adjustment.1

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that these requests be denied.

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

1 Such salary adjustments must be reviewed and approved by the appointing authority and the Salary

Adjustment Committee and are not subject to review by, or appeal to, the Commission.