Nathaniel Todd, CSC Docket No. 2022-2799

BackgroundNathaniel Todd appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Senior Repairer (PS6956J), Rowan University.

The subject promotional examination announcement was issued with a closing date of November 22, 2021 and was open to employees in the non- competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in the title Repairer, and who met the announced requirement of two years of experience in work involving the inspection, repair and general maintenance of household, office and other equipment, fixtures, fittings, appliances, machinery, furnishings, and buildings. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in experience. Two candidates appear on the eligible list, which has been certified once, but no appointments have yet been made.

The appellant listed experience in the following position on his application: Repairer from September 2018 to November 2021. As none of this experience was accepted, he was found to be lacking two years of qualifying experience.

On appeal, the appellant simply provides a copy of a resume with additional duties and positions.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 states that applicants for promotional examinations must meet all requirements by the announced closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked at least two years of experience in work involving the inspection, repair and general maintenance of household, office and other equipment, fixtures, fittings, appliances, machinery, furnishings, and buildings. In order for experience to be acceptable, it must mirror the experience required in the examination announcement. In addition, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004).

In this case, the appellant indicated that he was a Repairer from September 2018 to the November 2021 closing date. He indicated that his duties were, “Maintains Facilities Repairs.” This experience needed clarification, as it contained no reference to inspection, repair and general maintenance of household, office and other equipment, fixtures, fittings, appliances, machinery, furnishings, and buildings, but instead, merely referenced “facilities.” As such, he was found to be ineligible.

On appeal, the appellant clarifies his duties. He states that he does basic maintenance duties, and assesses the need for repairs and mechanical adjustments in buildings, and then highlights duties regarding painting and installation of sheet rock to damaged areas. An experience requirement that lists a number of duties which define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all of those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis (MSB, decided March 14, 2007). It is again unclear if the appellant is inspecting, repairing and performing general maintenance on equipment, fixtures, fittings, appliances, machinery, furnishings, and buildings. The appellant provides other positions on his resume, but does not include the hours worked per week, nor the months of service, and in some cases, the title and/or duties of the position. Nonetheless, two positions appear to have painting as the primary focus, and one has stocking merchandise as the primary focus. The remaining position had electrical repair, HVAC duties and painting as the primary focus. It is not clear from the appellant’s application that he possesses the required experience for the examiantion.

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 his 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.