Gregory Rindosh, CSC Docket No. 2023-201

BackgroundThe appeal of Gregory Rindosh, Fiscal Analyst, Burlington County, Department of Human Services, release at the end of the working test period (WTP), effective July 1, 2022, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Robert D. Herman (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on October 18, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority..

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on November 27, 2024, accepted and adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the release at the end of the WTP.

The Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ’s initial decision was thorough, comprehensive and legally correct. Nevertheless, the appellant’s exceptions present several arguments. Among these is the contention that the appellant attained permanent status since his provisional appointment spanned longer than 12 months. For all the reasons expressed by the ALJ in his eminently accurate legal analysis of this issue in the initial decision, the Commission rejects this argument. The Commission similarly rejects the appellant’s argument that the ALJ did not appropriately analyze his contentions of anti-union animus. In the initial decision, the ALJ found:

As it relates to any allegation that Burlington County acted improperly or with bad faith because of appellant’s union activities, there is no evidence to suggest it. To the contrary, Burlington County readily established that appellant was permitted time during regular working hours for union purposes, such as negotiating the CBA and educating fellow union members. The testimony of Ms. Scelza and Ms. West in this regard was entirely credible. If anyone, the union representative, Ms.

Scelza, would be particularly attuned to anti-union/labor activities— none of which she observed. Moreover, the absence of union grievances bolsters Ms. Scelza’s observations. Finally, while appellant may have perceived anti-union sentiment—perhaps when looking back—the absence of contemporaneous writings, notes, conversations, and the like, all lead to the inevitable conclusion that, if it existed at all, it did not rise to the level of bad faith.

While the appellant disagrees with the above, he has presented no persuasive evidence that leads the Commission to come to a different conclusion.

Similarly, the Commission rejects the appellant’s contention that the ALJ erred in finding the testimony and evidence in equipoise, and therefore, finding that the appellant did not satisfy his burden of proof. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). “[T]rial courts’ credibility findings ... are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

The Commission also rejects the appellant's argument that he was not timely served his WTP release notice, and thus, should be presumed a permanent employee pursuant to N.Jj.A.C. 4A:2-4.1(c). Regarding the service of the notice, the ALJ found:

With the ninety-day working test period coming to a close, and because appellant was scheduled to begin vacation on Friday, July 1,

2022, a meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 30, 2022, to discuss his ninety-day evaluation. Appellant, however, called out sick that date.

. Subsequently, Mr. Lombardo attempted to effectuate service of appellant’s evaluation, termination letter, and notice of the right to appeal, via email—as he was instructed to do from a contact at the

CSC—and via the Burlington County Sheriffs Department on July 1,

2022. (R-3; R-4.) Email copies of the documents were sent to appellant’s work email and to a private Google Mail (Gmail) account (which appellant claimed no access to the work email and limited examination of that particular Gmail account). On July 8, 2022, when appellant met with Mr. Lombardo and Ms. Scelza, he was personally served the ninety- day evaluation, termination letter, and notice of the right to appeal. (R- 5.)

Even assuming, arguendo, untimely service, an employee’s intentional or unintentional avoidance of service cannot be considered sufficient to trigger the permanent status provisions in N.<J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1(c). Moreover, per above, the record indicates that the appointing authority made a good faith effort to timely serve the notice. Finally, the presumption found in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1(c) can be rebutted where, as here, there is not a preponderance of evidence that the appointing authority effectuated the procedural or substantive aspects of the WTP in bad faith.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in releasing the appellant at the end of the working test period was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Gregory Rindosh.

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