Christopher Gerace, CSC Docket No. 2025-1584

BackgroundChristopher Gerace appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found him ineligible for the open competitive examination for Occupational Safety Consultant 1 (S1269F), Statewide, on the basis that he was below the minimum requirements in experience.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of September 23, 2024. Applicants were required to possess, in relevant part, six years of experience in the identification, analysis and/or solution of workplace safety hazards involving the application of federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and/or nationally recognized safety standards as of the closing date. Pursuant to the substitution clause, applicants could substitute college-level education for applicable experience, with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of relevant experience.

On his application, the appellant indicated that he possessed an Associate’s degree in Business Administration with 68 semester hour credits from Camden County College. Therefore, pursuant to the substitution clause, he needed to possess three years and nine months of applicable experience. With regard to his experience, he stated on his application that he served as a Fire Fighter, Captain, and Commissioner with the Willow Grove Fire Department from 2017 to the closing date; as a Police Officer with Gloucester Township from January 2003 to April 2019; as a part-time Fire Chief from 2010 to 2016; as a part-time Assistant Chief, Captain, and

Lieutenant from 2000 to 2010 with the Chews Landing Fire Department; and as a Fire Fighter, Emergency Medical Technician, and Fire Inspector with the Erial Fire Department from August 2002 to January 2003.

AnalysisUpon review of the appellant’s application, Agency Services found that he was below the minimum requirements in experience because there was no indication that he possessed the full three years and nine months of experience where the required duties were the primary focus of his responsibilities. Accordingly, the appellant was deemed ineligible for the subject examination.

On appeal, the appellant states that he has been involved in emergency services for more than 35 years and possesses extensive training certifications on relevant standards. In support, he submits a copy of his resume and a list of his training certifications. He contends that, based upon the totality of his education, experience and training certifications, he should be deemed eligible for the subject examination. In particular, he presents that his 20 years of service in investigative and public safety roles consistently required him to apply federal OSHA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Fire Protection Association (ANSI), Public Employees Occupational Safety and Health (PEOSH), and/or other national safety standards. He indicates that he has completed “walkthroughs” of businesses to mitigate hazards, inspected fire equipment, written and participated in respiratory protection policies, conducted on-site visits to ensure compliance with the Uniform Fire Code, has hazardous materials experience, and performed crash investigations.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) requires applicants to possess all the requirements specified in an announcement for an open competitive examination by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination because the appellant was below the minimum requirements in experience, as there was no indication that he possessed the full three years and nine months of experience where the required duties were the primary focus of his responsibilities. In this regard, in order for experience to be considered applicable, 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). Here, per the substitution clause in the subject examination announcement, the appellant was required to possess three years and nine months of experience in the identification, analysis and/or solution of workplace safety hazards involving the application of federal OSHA and/or nationally recognized safety standards as of the closing date. While the appellant performed some relevant duties in his public safety roles, a review of his application and appeal fails to demonstrate that the identification, analysis and/or solution of relevant workplace safety hazards was the primary focus of his responsibilities in any position. Critically, as set forth in the relevant job specifications, the primary focus of the duties of Fire Fighters and associated supervisory fire titles is the extinguishing of fires and related rescue and emergency operations, while the primary focus of a Police Officer is patrolling designated areas to provide assistance and protection for persons, safeguard property, assure observance of the law, and to apprehend law-breakers. Consequently, any identification, analysis and/or solution of workplace safety hazards involving the application of federal OSHA and/or nationally recognized safety standards would have been incidental to the appellant’s primary duties in these titles. Thus, it was properly determined that he did not possess sufficient applicable experience for the subject examination as of the closing date. Accordingly, the appellant has not met his burden of proof and there is no basis to disturb the decision of Agency Services.

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.