Nellie Hewitt and Louis Longo, CSC Docket No. 2026-42, 2026-44

BackgroundNellie Hewitt and Louis Longo request reconsideration of the effective date regarding their positions in the new Classification Officer, DOC title series. These appeals have been consolidated due to common issues presented.

By way of background, in In the Matter of Classification Officer, DOC Title Series (CSC, decided April 9, 2025), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) granted the Division of Agency Services’ request on behalf of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to establish a new Classification Officer, DOC title series resulting in the appellants, among other employees, being crosswalked to their new titles, effective April 19, 2025.

Thereafter, the DOC requested reconsideration of the effective date for certain adversely impacted incumbents. In its request, the DOC presented that the timing and full impact of the pending 2025 union contractual increases were inadvertently overlooked and/or underestimated. It stated 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 caused 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 requested 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 estimated that 11 Classification Officer 3s and 19 Supervising

Classification Officers were adversely impacted. In In the Matter of Classification Officer, Department of Corrections Title Series (CSC, May 21, 2025), the Commission granted the DOC’s request and ordered that 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 as identified by the DOC was changed to July 12, 2025. The effective date for any employees that were not indicated by the DOC as adversely impacted remained April 19, 2025.

Appellant's argumentIn their appeals, the appellants present that on May 6, 2025, they received notice of their title changes (Hewitt from Supervising Classification Officer Range 29/Step 10 to Supervising Classification Officer, DOC Range 30/Step 9 and Longo from Classification Officer 3 Range 26/Step 10 to Classification Officer 3, DOC Range 27/Step 9). They noted that the title creation was at the request of the DOC. The appellants present that the DOC’s human resources reset their anniversary dates (Hewitt from17/2023 to 10/2027 and Luongo from 18/2023 to 10/27).

The appellants assert that the new title change negatively impacted the title series, which resulted in the DOC’s request for reconsideration. Thereafter, on May 30, 2025, they received notice that the DOC requested a postponement of the title changes to after the 2025 contractual salary increases and a review of the salary determination and anniversary date assignments as a result of the title changes to the new Classification Officer, DOC title series. The appellants state that the Commission granted DOC’s request for reconsideration agreeing that there was an adverse impact by implementing the changes to the title series prior to the implementation of the 2025 union salary provisions due the first full pay period after July 1, 2025.

The appellants provide that although the reconsideration positively impacted all their counterparts in the same titles, they were advised that they would remain at the same range/step (Hewitt Range 30/Step 9 and Luong Range 27/Step 9) with the new anniversary date of 10/2027. They state that the DOC’s human resources indicated that their counterparts were given the benefit of the salary adjustment and their anniversary dates were also reverted.

BackgroundThe appellants’ appeals are based on two main points:

1. Per N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.5(b), “a current employee’s anniversary date may change as a result of advancement pay adjustment. See N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.9.”

Per the DOC’s human resources office, N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.9 does not apply to as it related to this personnel action. Accordingly, the appellants state that they did not meet the criteria for resetting their anniversary dates as defined under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.5. Therefore, the appellants believe that they should retain their previous anniversary dates (Hewitt 17/2023 and Luongo 18/2023) allowing Hewitt to progress to the Range 30/Step 10 in the

17th pay period of 2025 and Luongo to progress to Range 27/Step 10 in the

18th pay period of 2025. They assert that that this would align the with their colleagues in their same title that were subject to the same title change.

2. They also request that their “Advancement Pay Adjustments” be adjusted per N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.9.

Appellant's argumentThe appellants reiterate that their anniversary dates should revert to 17/2023 for Hewitt and 18/2023 for Luongo and/or adjust their salaries per N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.9 allowing them to align with their counterparts in the title series (Range 30/Step 10 for Hewitt and Range 27/Step 10 for Luongo). They emphasize that if their anniversary dates remain 10/2027, they are forced to wait 46 months for Hewitt and 45 months for Luongo to move one full step instead of the required 24 months.

Among other documents, the appellants submit a May 30, 2025, email from DOC’s human resources. The email states, “Unfortunately, it will not be possible to resolve every salary and anniversary date determination or get every employee to their desired outcome.” Further, under frequently asked questions, the email provides:

If I am a former Classification Officer 3 or Supervising

Classification Officer at a salary step 10 with a long anniversary date but not 52 pay periods, am I eligible for an extra salary increment/step?

No. The decision established the new Classification Officer, DOC title series under CSC Docket Number 2025-1923 called for salary increases to the next higher step in the new salary range. NJCSC rule under

[N.J.A.C.] 4A:3-4.9(d) Advancement pay adjustments; State service which would grant an extra salary increment, does not apply in this matter.

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.

AnalysisThe appellants do not meet the standard for reconsideration. The record indicates in the subject initial and reconsideration decisions, except for the specific employees that the DOC requested reconsideration, the Commission set the effective date, April 19, 2025, for the subject title changes based on the decision date, which was within its authority. Further, as indicated in the appointing authority’s May 30, 2025, email, “Unfortunately, it will not be possible to resolve every salary and anniversary date determination or get every employee to their desired outcome.” Therefore, as the appellants were not part of the group that the appointing authority requested reconsideration, there is no basis to support the request as there is no requirement under Civil Service law and rules that would mandate that the appellants be eligible for their next salary step within the time they request.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appeals be denied.

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