C.B., CSC Docket No. 2025-141

BackgroundC.B. appeals the layoff plan submitted by Union County for July 1, 20241 and his recorded hire date, salary, and pension.

As background, the appellant was granted an appeal of the removal of his name from a County Correction Officer,2 Union County, eligible list and was given a retroactive appointment date for seniority and salary step purposes only. See In the Matter of [C.] [B.], County Correction [Officer] (S9999W), County of Union (MSB, decided December 19, 2000). After this decision but before the appellant was hired, Union County instituted a layoff action which resulted in the appellant not actually commencing the duties of his position until August 24, 2002. However, in accordance with the decision, the appellant received a permanent appointment date of February 12, 2000.3 Thereafter, this agency had informed Union County that the appellant was not entitled to more seniority than other eligibles appointed from his same certification and who were later rehired from a special reemployment list. The appellant appealed the determination of his hire date and salary step placement, making numerous arguments about improper hiring practices and discriminatory hiring practices. In In the Matter of [C.] [B.], County Correction Officer (S9999W), Union County (CSC, decided April 4, 2018), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) outlined the appellant’s prior list removal appeal, his hire date, his actual start date, the Union County layoff, appointments from a special reemployment list, and an intergovernmental transfer. The Commission found that upon examining all these facts, the appellant’s recorded employment history was correct and denied his appeal. The appellant’s request for reconsideration was also denied in In the Matter of [C.] [B.], County Correction Officer (S9999W), Union County (CSC, decided August 1, 2018).

1 The layoff was scheduled to be effective at the end of business on June 30, 2024. 2 The title is now known as County Correctional Police Officer. 3 Although the decision in In the Matter of [C.] [B.], County Correction Officer (S9999W), Union County (CSC, decided April 4, 2018) initially referenced a date of February 20, 2000, agency records reveals that the appointment date was actually February 12, 2000, and the decision later utilized this date in the conclusion.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the appellant argues that while the July 1, 2024 layoff plan was approved, it was done so with inaccurate hire dates for other employees and his own hire date. Additionally, the appellant reiterates his argument that his hire date was improperly determined and recorded.4 He claims that this has had a direct consequence on his salary, pension contributions, and overall employment rights. Further, the appellant asserts that he has submitted new evidence proving that Union County engaged in hiring practices rooted in nepotism, resulting in the displacement of minority officers without proper application of hiring policies. He alleges that this agency, whether knowingly or unknowingly, overlooked these violations possibly due to relationships between Union County officials and members of the Commission, who serve on various boards and committees together.

Moreover, the appellant argues that the New Jersey pension system and Union County have failed to properly address salary and pension discrepancies, despite the clear contractual obligations under PBA Local 199’s agreement. In support of his contentions, the appellant submits the following: a copy of a discrimination complaint he filed against Union County; a letter dated May 21, 2020 from the County Manager finding that he had not been discriminated against or adversely treated with regard to his hire date or salary placement and noted that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dismissed the charge in that regard, and despite being provided a right to sue letter, no suit was filed; a determination letter dated October 1, 2020 by Union County’s Affirmative Action Officer finding no basis for discrimination and also noting that EEOC declined to find any error to inappropriate conduct on the part of Union County; self-created charts as to the appellant’s belief of the salary he should have received had he obtained the appointment date that he wanted; an unlabeled typed list of names with handwritten dates next to them; several other charts of unknown origin listing steps and salaries; a memo from Union County dated August 20, 2002 concerning his hiring; letters from PBA Local 199 requesting clarification about the appointments after the 2001 layoff; a letter from this agency dated October 3, 2002 indicating that the appellant was not entitled to more seniority than other eligibles appointed from his same certification and who were later rehired from a special reemployment list; a memo from Union County dated November 18, 2003 indicating that the appellant could not purchase service

4 The appellant questioned various dates in 2000 relating to the July 6, 1999 certification of the County

Correction Officer (S9999W), Union County, eligible list.

time between February 12, 2000 and August 23, 2002 as he was not employed during that time; and a notarized statement from another correction officer claiming his seniority had not been properly determined.

CONCLUSION

Initially, a review of official records reveals that the appellant was not affected by the July 1, 2024 layoff. Therefore, he lacks standing to challenge that layoff plan.

Additionally, the appellant alleges many discriminatory actions by Union County and this agency, including improper hiring practices to the detriment of minorities and claims that was a cover-up of these practices. However, none of the materials submitted by the appellant support such allegations. Further, the Commission does not have authority to review claims of discrimination at the local level. Nonetheless, a review of the materials submitted by the appellant indicates that the appellant had filed a complaint at the local level which found no discrimination. Further, the appellant filed a complaint with EEOC which had apparently issued a right to sue letter, but there is no evidence that the appellant had filed suit.

The appellant also raises concerns about the failure to follow his union contract and with pension issues. The Commission has no authority over either of these issues. Specifically, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to enforce or interpret items which are contained in a collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the employer and the majority representative. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Sienkiewicz, Bobby Jenkins and Frank Jackson, Docket No. A-1980-99T1 (App. Div., May 8, 2001). The proper forum to bring such concerns is the Public Employment Relations Committee. See N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(c). Similarly, pension-related issues need to be raised with the Division of Pensions and Benefits.

With regard to the appellant’s arguments regarding his appointment date and salary step placement dating back to 2000, the Commission notes that N.J.A.C. 4A:2- 1.4(c) provides that the burden of proof in this matter is on the appellant. In this regard, the Commission finds that the appellant has not met this burden. Despite the appellant’s assertion, he has not submitted any new substantive evidence regarding his appointment date. His arguments are substantially similar to the arguments previously addressed by the Commission in its two prior decisions on this matter. The appellant has already had the opportunity for reconsideration. The expectation of finality of a decision attaches to a Commission determination. The appellant nevertheless has not provided any new evidence that shows those decisions were incorrect or improper. Further, the Commission had indicated in those prior decisions that any further review of his arguments were to be pursued in a judicial forum. Accordingly, as the appellant has not provided any basis to disturb the Commission’s prior determinations or presented credible evidence on claims that the Commission has the authority to review, this appeal is denied.

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.