NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9 Position review request and appeal procedure

N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9, Position review request and appeal procedure. A position review request is a petition for a review from the classification or reclassification of a position, or a complaint that the duties of a specific Full text with 4 recorded amendments, 49 citing decisions, cited by 4 other ru

Classification, Services, and Compensation · Classification

Current through New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026. Reviewed as of July 26, 2026.

This is an annotated mirror, not the official publication. Verify against the Civil Service Commission before relying on it.

In plain language

The rule for when the work outranks the title on the payroll. A position review request is a petition to review how a position is classified, or a complaint that the duties performed do not conform to the specification for the assigned title. It is open to career and unclassified service employees alike, and the two services route differently. In State service the petition climbs through the immediate supervisor and the program manager or division director, who each have 15 days to agree or disagree in writing and sign, then via the agency representative to a Commission representative. In local service an employee, union representative or appointing authority petitions the Commission representative directly, and a supervisor who has not signed within 15 working days cannot stall it: the petitioner may forward it noting the date it was presented. A decision letter is due within 180 days. Success need not mean a better title, because one of the three available determinations is that the position is correctly classified but out-of-title duties are being performed, in which case the order is to remove them. Appeal to the Commission runs 20 days from receipt, and arguments not made below are not considered.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

(a) A position review request is a petition for a review from the classification or reclassification of a position, or a complaint that the duties of a specific position do not conform to the approved job specification for the title assigned to that position. #

(b) The procedures in this section are applicable to employees in the career and unclassified services. #

(c) In State service, a classification petition by an employee or union representative shall be made in writing. The petition shall include a position classification questionnaire completed by the petitioner, and shall specify the title that the petitioner believes is appropriate to the duties performed by the employee and explain how the duties at issue are more appropriate to the requested title than to the title in which the employee is currently serving. #

1. The employee's immediate supervisor shall indicate on the position classification questionnaire the supervisor's agreement or disagreement with the petitioner's description of job duties, the petitioner's cited percentage of time spent on each duty, and the title proposed by the petitioner as appropriate to the duties performed. To the extent that the supervisor disagrees with information on the questionnaire, the supervisor shall explain in writing the nature of the disagreement. The supervisor shall also sign the position classification questionnaire. #

2. The employee's immediate supervisor shall forward the completed position classification questionnaire to the program manager/division director, as applicable, who shall indicate on the questionnaire agreement or disagreement with the petitioner's description of job duties, the petitioner's cited percentage of time spent on each duty, and the title proposed by the petitioner as appropriate to the duties performed. To the extent that the program manager/division director disagrees with information on the questionnaire, he or she shall explain in writing the nature of the disagreement. The program manager/division director shall also sign the questionnaire. #

3. The supervisor and program manager/division director shall complete their portions of the questionnaire and provide their signatures on the form in accordance with (c)1 and 2 above within 15 days of the employee's submission of the petition to the immediate supervisor. By no later than the end of this period, the program manager/division director shall submit to the agency representative the completed questionnaire, along with the petitioner's most recent PAR form (see N.J.A.C. 4A:6-5). #

4. The agency representative shall review the petition, affix to it an organizational chart, and ensure that the information set forth in (c)1, 2, and 3 above has been included. Within 10 days of receipt of the petition, the agency representative shall either notify the petitioner that specific additional information is required, or forward the petition with organizational chart to the appropriate representative of the Civil Service Commission. The agency representative may, in writing, indicate with the submitted petition a recommended approval or rejection of the petition for specified reasons. The agency representative shall notify the petitioner of the submission to the Commission representative. If additional information is required of the petitioner, the agency representative shall forward the petition with organizational chart and the additional information to the appropriate representative of the Civil Service Commission within 10 days of receipt of the petitioner's response to the request for additional information. #

5. A representative of the Civil Service Commission shall review the petition filed pursuant to (c)4 above, request additional information, if needed, order a desk audit, where warranted, and issue a written decision letter. The decision letter shall be issued within 180 days of receipt of the petition and all completed documentation as required by the representative of the Civil Service Commission, and shall: #

i. Where the agency representative, Commission representative, program manager/division director, and petitioner are in agreement with the proposed title, issue an abbreviated decision letter; or #

ii. Where the agency representative, Commission representative, program manager/division director, and petitioner are not in agreement with the proposed title, include a summary of the duties of the position, findings of fact, conclusions, a notice to an employee or authorized employee representative of appeal rights to the Civil Service Commission, and a determination that: #

(1) The position is properly classified; #

(2) The position is properly classified, but that out-of-title duties are being performed, in which case the Commission representative shall order, in writing, the immediate removal of inappropriate duties within a specified period of time; or #

(3) The position should be reclassified, in which case, normal reclassification procedures shall be initiated immediately. #

(d) In local service, a petition from an employee, union representative, or appointing authority shall be submitted, in writing, to the appropriate representative of the Civil Service Commission. The petition must identify the specific duties that do not conform to the specification for the title and, if the petitioner proposes a different title for the position, an explanation of how that existing title more accurately describes the duties of the position than the current or proposed title. If requested by a representative of the Commission, the petition shall also include a completed position classification questionnaire and an organizational chart. If the petitioner's supervisor has not signed the questionnaire within 15 working days of receipt of the questionnaire from the petitioner, the petitioner may forward the questionnaire to the appropriate representative of the Commission without the supervisor's signature but with a notation of the date of presentation to the supervisor. #

1. A representative of the Civil Service Commission shall review the petition, request additional information if needed, order a desk audit where warranted, and issue a written decision letter. The decision letter shall be issued within 180 days of receipt of the petition and of all completed documentation as required by the Commission representative, and shall include a summary of the duties of the position, findings of fact, conclusions, a notice to the employee or authorized employee representative of appeal rights to the Civil Service Commission, and a determination that: #

i. The position is properly classified; #

ii. The position is properly classified, but that out-of-title duties are being performed, in which case the Commission representative shall order, in writing, the immediate removal of inappropriate duties; or #

iii. The position should be reclassified, in which case normal reclassification procedures shall be initiated. #

(e) Appeals from the decision of the Commission representative to the Civil Service Commission pursuant to (c)4 and 5 or (d) above may be made by an employee, authorized employee representative, or local appointing authority. The appeal shall be submitted in writing within 20 days of receipt of the decision letter and include copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or arguments that were not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered. When new information and/or arguments are presented, the appeal may be remanded to the prior level. #

1. The Civil Service Commission may render a decision based on the written record or appoint an independent classification reviewer. If the Commission appoints an independent classification reviewer to conduct an informal review of the appeal, all parties will be advised of the review date and given the opportunity to present their arguments before the reviewer. An employee may be represented by counsel or by a union representative. #

2. The classification reviewer shall submit a report and recommendation to the Commission within 30 days of the review. The report and recommendation shall include an analysis of the duties of the position as they relate to the job specification, findings, conclusions, and the recommendation. The report and recommendation shall be sent to all parties with notice that exceptions are to be filed within 15 days of receipt of the report and recommendation. Exceptions must be served on all parties. If exceptions are filed, cross-exceptions may be filed within 10 days of receipt of exceptions. #

3. If an appeal is granted by the Civil Service Commission, the effective date of implementation shall be: #

i. In State service, the pay period immediately after 14 days from the date an appropriate Civil Service Commission representative first received the appeal or reclassification request, or at such earlier date as directed by the Commission; or #

ii. In local service, the date an appropriate representative of the Commission first received the appeal or reclassification request, or at such earlier date as directed by the Commission. #

4. The decision by the Commission is the final administrative determination. #

(f) See N.J.A.C. 4A:10-2 for enforcement of determinations by the Commission. #

You are doing higher level work than your title says

There is a formal route for this, and it is worth understanding what it can and cannot deliver before you start. A position review request asks the Commission to review how a position is classified, or complains that the duties actually performed do not match the specification for the assigned title. It is open to career and unclassified service employees.

The two services route differently. In State service the petition climbs through your immediate supervisor and then the program manager or division director, each with 15 days to agree or disagree in writing and sign, before it reaches a Commission representative through the agency representative. In local service an employee, a union representative or the appointing authority petitions the Commission representative directly, and a supervisor who has not signed within 15 working days cannot stall it: the petitioner may forward it noting the date it was presented. A decision letter is due within 180 days.

Here is the part people are surprised by. Winning does not necessarily mean a better title. One of the three available determinations is that the position is correctly classified but out-of-title duties are being performed, and the order that follows is to stop assigning those duties. The reclassification route has the same shape: within 30 days of a determination the appointing authority may make the change, assign duties matching the current title, or reassign the employee, and two of those three take the work away rather than paying you for it.

An appeal to the Commission runs 20 days from receipt, and arguments not made below are not considered, so the case has to be built at the first stage rather than saved for the appeal.

Do not confuse this with job reevaluation. Position review is about one position. Reevaluation is about a whole title, and an employee appeal there has to show the change in job content affects every employee holding the title, which is a far heavier lift.

Related on this site: /classification/competitive

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team. Every statement here traces to the rules cited on this page. It is not legal advice, and a collective agreement may change how these rules apply to you.

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 4 recorded changes.

  1. AmendedR.2019 d.072
    51 N.J.R. 191(b); 51 N.J.R. 1115(a); 52 N.J.R. 971(a)
  2. AmendedR.2014 d.099
    45 N.J.R. 500(a); 46 N.J.R. 260(a); 46 N.J.R. 1331(c)
  3. AmendedR.2012 d.009
    43 N.J.R. 2404(a); 44 N.J.R. 70(a)
  4. AmendedR.1993 d.424
    25 N.J.R. 1916(a); 25 N.J.R. 4064(a)

How this rule has been applied

49 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. We have not written summaries for this section. A citation with no summary is deliberate: we do not paraphrase a decision we have not read. Nothing here is legal advice.

Appellate Division (1)
  • Appeal of Darcy114 N.J.Super. 454; 277 A.2d 226
Superior Court (1)
  • Lapolla v. County of Union2017
Civil Service Commission final determinations (44)
  • In re Adams, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2022-1071Docket 2022-1071
  • In re Blake, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., CSC Docket No. 2022-2307Docket 2022-2307
  • In re Lyle, Dep't of the Treas., CSC Docket No. 2022-299Docket 2022-299
  • In re Natalewicz, Dep't of the Treas., CSC Docket No. 2022-278Docket 2022-278
  • In re Lucas, Essex Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2021-684Docket 2021-684
  • In re Bailey, et al., Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., CSC Docket Nos. 2021-1238, et al. (Consolidated)Docket 2021-1238
  • In re Nock, Dep't of Transp., CSC Docket No. 2020-2150Docket 2020-2150cites (e)3
  • In re D'Errico, Dep't of Health, CSC Docket No. 2020-1846Docket 2020-1846
  • In re Droubi, City of Clifton, CSC Docket No. 2019-3191Docket 2019-3191
  • In re Golub, Dep't of Law & Public Safety, CSC Docket No. 2019-2523Docket 2019-2523
  • In re Bennett, Dep't of Corrs., CSC Docket No. 2019-3147Docket 2019-3147
  • In re L.J., William Paterson Univ., CSC Docket No. 2018-665Docket 2018-665
  • PCQ. In re Morales, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2018-3164Docket 2018-3164
  • In re D'Esposito, Chief Security Guard (PC1027W), Bergen Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2018-3720Docket 2018-3720
  • In re Bryson, Supervising Auditor Taxation (PS6642U), Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2018-3041Docket 2018-3041
  • State Classification Plan. In re Fattori, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2018-2638Docket 2018-2638
  • In re Fattori, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2018-2638Docket 2018-2638
  • In re D.C-W., CSC Docket No. 2018-1644Docket 2018-1644
  • In re Wollert, Ewing Twp., CSC Docket No. 2017-3684Docket 2017-3684
  • Agency Services. In re Kelso, et al., Asbury Pk. Police Dep't., CSC Docket Nos. 2018-2634, et al. (Consolidated)Docket 2018-2634
  • In re Darlington, Auditor 2, Taxation, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2016-4263Docket 2016-4263
  • In re Grosser, Vernon Twp., CSC Docket No. 2018-1149Docket 2018-1149
  • DAS. In re Mitchell, Dep't of Human Servs., CSC Dkt. No. 2016-3097
  • In re McCartney, Dep't of Envt'l. Prot., CSC Dkt. No. 2015-2492
  • In re Senger, Dep't of Law & Public Safety, CSC Dkt. No. 2015-948
  • In re Boesch, Hunterdon Cnty., CSC Dkt. Nos. 2014-1869
  • In re Witcher, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., CSC Docket No. 2013-754Docket 2013-754
  • In re Graeme, Dep't of Military & Veterans Affairs, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-2641
  • In re Agee, et al., Greystone Park Psychiatric Hosp., CSC Dkt. No. 2014-3110
  • In re Motzer, Bloomfield Twp., CSC Docket No. 2014-2612Docket 2014-2612
  • In re Samuel Agee, et al., Greystone Pk. Psych. Hosp., CSC Docket No. 2014-3110Docket 2014-3110
  • In re Stemler, Dep't of Health, CSC Docket No. 2014-842Docket 2014-842
  • Civil Service Commission. In re Abrahamsen, Bergen Cnty.
  • In re Bisanzio, Sewer Repairer Supervisor (PM1903R), Hamilton, CSC Docket Nos. 2014-2052Docket 2014-2052
  • In re Suzanne O'Hearn, Dep't of Law and Public Safety, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-1952
  • In re Callery, Town of Phillipsburg, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-1657
  • In re Messiha, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2014-203Docket 2014-203cites (f)
  • In re Susan Santiago, Dep't of Children & Families, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-341
  • Bonica, Jr., Dep't. of Envtl. Prot., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-1613
  • In re Wendy Eufemia, Dep't of Educ., CSC Docket No. 2012-2895Docket 2012-2895cites (c)5
  • In re Guerieri et al., Department of Environmental Protection, CSC Dkt. Nos. 2012-3528cites (f)
  • In re Angel Lierena, Dep't. of Labor and Workforce Dev., CSC Dkt. No. 2011-4279cites (c)5
  • Storekeeper. In re Norman Ehrke et al, Dep't of Transp., CSC Dkt. Nos. 2012-1430
  • In re Craig Conway, Department of Corrections, CSC Docket No. 2010-4019Docket 2010-4019
Other decisions (3)
  • District court properly granted state agencies judgment on the pleadings with respect to appellant state employee's claim of violation of the Due Process Clause; as a state employer had the discretion under this section to decide whether to promote an employee who was performing duties above her position, as appellant alleged she was, she did not have the requisite level of entitlement in the promotion to have a valid property interest for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. Chee-Wah v. Maurer2016
  • It was the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust's legal right to oppose the employee's reclassification pursuant to the procedures set forth in the New Jersey Administrative Code; indeed, it was its responsibility to ensure proper classification of its employees. The proper exercise of a legal right to discharge a legal obligation plainly could not form the basis of an adverse employment action. Ugorji v. N.J. Envtl. Infrastructure Trust2012
  • When an employee was reclassified from a Superintendent Parks and Forestry 3 to a Superintendent Parks and Forestry 2, a review of N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(f) indicated to the Civil Service Commission that his appointment date was correctly set to the first date of the pay period after 14 days from when the agency received the reclassification request with the proper documentation. There was nothing in the record to suggest that the appointing authority acted in bad faith or was seriously negligent in its internal department processing delays. In re Vincentcites (f)

Commission decisions citing 4A:3-3.9

182 decisions of the Civil Service Commission since January 16, 2019 cite this section (denied 149, granted 19, granted in part 4, as the minutes record the outcome). The newest:

All 182 decisions

Rules that point here

Elsewhere in Classification