Classification Officer, CSC Docket No. 2025-2396
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of May 21, 2025, CSC Docket No. 2025-2396: request for reconsideration, granted. The Department of Corrections requests reconsideration of the effective date for adversely impacted incumbents regarding In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (CS
Commission decisions · Meeting of May 21, 2025
The Department of Corrections requests reconsideration of the effective date for adversely impacted incumbents regarding In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (CSC, decided April 9, 2025).
- Matter
- Request for reconsideration
- Decided
- May 21, 2025, item B-7
- Outcome
- Granted
- Chair at the time
- Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
- Official decision
- CSC's PDF
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this request be granted.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundThe Department of Corrections (DOC) requests reconsideration of the effective date for adversely impacted incumbents regarding In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (CSC, decided April 9, 2025).
By way of background, in In the Matter of Classification Officer, supra, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) granted the Division of Agency Services’ request on behalf of the DOC to establish a new Classification Officer, DOC title series.1 Specifically, incumbents were crosswalked to the corresponding level of the Classification Officer, DOC title series or the Technical Assistant Classification, DOC title as follows:
From: To:
Supervising Classification Officer Supervising Classification Officer, DOC (61401, R29) (S30)
Classification Officer 3 (61394, P26) Classification Officer 3, DOC (R27)
Classification Officer 2 (61393, P23) Classification Officer 2, DOC (P23)
1 It is noted that title creation need not be approved by the Commission as the Chairperson has such authority under N.J.S.A. 11A:2-11e. Here, as the Commission was originally asked to approve the creation based substantially on the fact employees were being crosswalked to the new titles, and some involved salary issues, it is appropriate for it to act on the current matter. For future similar matters, such requests can be reviewed by the Division of Agency Services and forwarded directly to the Chairperson for consideration.
Classification Officer 1 (61392, P20) Classification Officer 1, DOC (P20) Classification Officer Apprentice (61395, Classification Officer Apprentice, DOC P19) (P19) Technical Assistant Classification Technical Assistant Classification, DOC (61391, P17) (P17)
Additionally, this action was effective the first pay period following the issue date of the decision, which was April 19, 2025.
Appellant's argumentIn its request for reconsideration, the DOC presents that the timing and full impact of the pending 2025 union contractual increases were inadvertently overlooked and/or underestimated. It states that the implementation of the title crosswalks of incumbents to the new title series prior to the 2025 union contractual increases and establishment of the 11TH salary step’s effective date causes undeniable and undue harm to incumbents who were Classification Officer 3s and Supervising Classification Officers at salary step 10 for 24 months/52 pay periods. Therefore, the DOC requests that the effective date for the adversely impacted employees of the title crosswalks be changed to late July 2025 or later which will have minimal operational impact. It estimates that 11 Classification Officer 3s and 19 Supervising Classification Officers are adversely impacted.
CONCLUSION
RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(a) provides that within 45 days of receipt of a decision, a party to the appeal may petition the Commission for reconsideration. N.J.A.C. 4A:2- 1.6(b) sets forth the standards by which a prior decision may be reconsidered. This rule provides that a party must show that a clear material error has occurred, or present new evidence or additional information not presented at the original proceeding which would change the outcome of the case and the reasons that such evidence was not presented at the original proceeding.
AnalysisIn this matter, the DOC presents sufficient grounds for reconsideration as the collective negotiations agreement that adversely impacts certain DOC incumbents was not considered in determining the effective date of the prior decision. Therefore, the Commission grants the DOC’s request for reconsideration for these adversely impacted incumbents. Specifically, since the original Classification Officer title series is still active and available for general use, the adversely impacted incumbents shall remain in the original Classification Officer title series until July 12, 2025, and then crosswalked to the corresponding title as indicated in In the Matter of Classification Officer, supra.2 The effective date for any incumbent that was not adversely impacted shall remain April 19, 2025, pursuant to that decision.
2 July 12, 2025 is the beginning of the first full pay period after the July 1, 2025, across-the-board contractual salary increases and the 11TH salary step’s effective date. On that date, the adversely impacted incumbents shall initially receive their contractual across-the-board salary increases and
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the request be granted and the effective date for crosswalking as indicated in In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (CSC, decided April 9, 2025) for any adversely impacted employee shall be changed to July 12, 2025, as described herein. The effective date for any employees that were not adversely impacted shall remain April 19, 2025.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
Decisions this one cites
- In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (April 9, 2025)
- In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (April 9, 2025)
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.