Richard Olah, CSC Docket No. 2025-591

BackgroundRichard Olah appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirements for the Occupational Safety Consultant 1 (PS5684N), Department of Labor and Workforce Development promotional examination.

By way of background, the subject examination was announced with a March 21, 2024 closing date and was open, in pertinent part, to applicants who possessed a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university plus two years of professional experience in the identification, analysis and/or solution of workplace safety hazards involving the application of Federal OSHA and/or nationally recognized safety standards. Nine individuals applied for the examination and five were determined to be eligible.

On his application and attached resume, the appellant indicated that he possessed a Bachelor’s degree and indicated his employment with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development as a provisional Occupational Safety Consultant 1 from January 2024 to the closing date; as an Investigator 1 from January 2022 to December 2023; and as an Investigator Trainee from November 2021 to October 2022. He also indicated that he served as a Police Sergeant with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from October 2005 to July 2019, and as a Police Officer from November 1998 to September 2005. Agency Services found that the appellant satisfied the educational requirement and possessed three months of applicable experience as a provisional Occupational Safety Consultant 1 as of the closing date.

However, he did not indicate any applicable responsibilities that were of the level and scope required by the subject title in his remaining positions. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that he was ineligible for the subject promotional examination.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts that “there are factors that may not have been fully considered” and he has “added a precise set of unique skills that were acquired and utilized during previous work titles. Additionally, I added a key piece of volunteer work as a Safety Committee Member for the Holland Tunnel.” In this regard, the appellant submits an updated resume and argues that he is amply qualified for the subject position.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) states that applicants for promotional examinations must meet all requirements by the announced 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 not eligible for the subject examination. In this regard, while the appellant satisfied the educational requirement, he only possessed three months of applicable experience as a provisional Occupational Safety Consultant 1 as of the closing date. None of his remaining positions are applicable as he did not describe any duties that involved the identification, analysis and/or solution of workplace safety hazards involving the application of Federal OSHA and/or nationally recognized safety standards as the primary responsibility as required.

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(g), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) may accept clarifying information in eligibility appeals, e.g., information submitted on appeal pertaining to duties in a given position that expands or enlarges information previously submitted is considered clarifying. On appeal, the appellant does not describe any additional duties for the positions he had indicated on his application that meet the above noted experience requirements.

In his appeal, the appellant also indicates volunteer experience as a Safety Committee Member for the Holland Tunnel. Even if this experience were applicable, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. That is, any documentation indicating work in any setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See In the Matter of Joann Burch, et al. (MSB, decided August 21, 2003) and In the Matter of Rolanda Alphonso, et al. (MSB, decided January 26, 2005). Thus, since the appellant did not list this information on his application or on his initial resume, the information he provides on appeal would be considered an amendment. Accordingly, the appellant does not satisfy the subject requirements and was correctly deemed ineligible for the subject promotional examination.

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.