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, 50 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.

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.

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.

(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. #

Amendment history

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

July 1, 2019AmendedR.2019 d.072
51 N.J.R. 191(b); 51 N.J.R. 1115(a); 52 N.J.R. 971(a)
June 2, 2014AmendedR.2014 d.099
45 N.J.R. 500(a); 46 N.J.R. 260(a); 46 N.J.R. 1331(c)
January 3, 2012AmendedR.2012 d.009
43 N.J.R. 2404(a); 44 N.J.R. 70(a)
September 7, 1993AmendedR.1993 d.424
25 N.J.R. 1916(a); 25 N.J.R. 4064(a)

How this rule has been applied

50 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 N.J. Super. LEXIS 432017

Civil Service Commission final determinations (45)

In re Adams, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2022-10712022 N.J. CSC LEXIS 347Docket 2022-1071June 20, 2022
In re Blake, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., CSC Docket No. 2022-23072022 N.J. CSC LEXIS 238Docket 2022-2307May 2, 2022
In re Lyle, Dep't of the Treas., CSC Docket No. 2022-2992021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 543Docket 2022-299December 6, 2021
In re Natalewicz, Dep't of the Treas., CSC Docket No. 2022-2782021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 456Docket 2022-278October 12, 2021
In re Lucas, Essex Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2021-6842021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 209Docket 2021-684June 7, 2021
In re Bailey, et al., Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., CSC Docket Nos. 2021-1238, et al. (Consolidated)2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 140Docket 2021-1238April 12, 2021
In re Nock, Dep't of Transp., CSC Docket No. 2020-21502021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 60Docket 2020-2150February 23, 2021
In re D'Errico, Dep't of Health, CSC Docket No. 2020-18462020 N.J. CSC LEXIS 433Docket 2020-1846July 20, 2020
In re Droubi, City of Clifton, CSC Docket No. 2019-31912019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 646Docket 2019-3191September 12, 2019
In re Golub, Dep't of Law & Public Safety, CSC Docket No. 2019-25232019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 554Docket 2019-2523August 16, 2019
In re Bennett, Dep't of Corrs., CSC Docket No. 2019-31472019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 453Docket 2019-3147July 18, 2019
In re L.J., William Paterson Univ., CSC Docket No. 2018-6652018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 705Docket 2018-665October 3, 2018
PCQ. In re Morales, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2018-31642018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 653Docket 2018-3164September 6, 2018
In re D'Esposito, Chief Security Guard (PC1027W), Bergen Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2018-37202018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 643Docket 2018-3720September 6, 2018
In re Bryson, Supervising Auditor Taxation (PS6642U), Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2018-30412018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 506Docket 2018-3041July 24, 2018
State Classification Plan. In re Fattori, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2018-26382018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 487Docket 2018-2638July 23, 2018
In re Fattori, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2018-26382018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 487Docket 2018-2638July 23, 2018
In re Fattori, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2018-26382018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 487Docket 2018-2638July 23, 2018
In re D.C-W., CSC Docket No. 2018-16442018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 432Docket 2018-1644June 8, 2018
In re Wollert, Ewing Twp., CSC Docket No. 2017-36842018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 340Docket 2017-3684May 7, 2018
Agency Services. In re Kelso, et al., Asbury Pk. Police Dep't., CSC Docket Nos. 2018-2634, et al. (Consolidated)2018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 342Docket 2018-2634May 2, 2018
In re Darlington, Auditor 2, Taxation, Dep't of the Treasury, CSC Docket No. 2016-42632018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 239Docket 2016-4263April 10, 2018
In re Grosser, Vernon Twp., CSC Docket No. 2018-11492018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 214Docket 2018-1149April 10, 2018
DAS. In re Mitchell, Dep't of Human Servs., CSC Dkt. No. 2016-30972017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 60January 23, 2017
In re McCartney, Dep't of Envt'l. Prot., CSC Dkt. No. 2015-24922015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 429June 8, 2015
In re Senger, Dep't of Law & Public Safety, CSC Dkt. No. 2015-9482015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 444May 8, 2015
In re Boesch, Hunterdon Cnty., CSC Dkt. Nos. 2014-18692015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 242March 6, 2015
In re Witcher, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., CSC Docket No. 2013-7542015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 81Docket 2013-754March 6, 2015
In re Graeme, Dep't of Military & Veterans Affairs, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-26412014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 798October 24, 2014
In re Agee, et al., Greystone Park Psychiatric Hosp., CSC Dkt. No. 2014-31102014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 872July 16, 2014
In re Motzer, Bloomfield Twp., CSC Docket No. 2014-26122014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 514Docket 2014-2612July 16, 2014
In re Samuel Agee, et al., Greystone Pk. Psych. Hosp., CSC Docket No. 2014-31102014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 507Docket 2014-3110July 16, 2014
In re Stemler, Dep't of Health, CSC Docket No. 2014-8422014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 602Docket 2014-842June 6, 2014
Civil Service Commission. In re Abrahamsen, Bergen Cnty.2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 387April 25, 2014
In re Bisanzio, Sewer Repairer Supervisor (PM1903R), Hamilton, CSC Docket Nos. 2014-20522014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 13Docket 2014-2052April 14, 2014
In re Suzanne O'Hearn, Dep't of Law and Public Safety, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-19522014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 22April 10, 2014
In re Callery, Town of Phillipsburg, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-16572013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1206November 20, 2013
In re Messiha, Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, CSC Docket No. 2014-2032013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 936Docket 2014-203September 4, 2013
In re Susan Santiago, Dep't of Children & Families, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-3412013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 480August 1, 2013
Bonica, Jr., Dep't. of Envtl. Prot., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-16132013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 683July 17, 2013
In re Wendy Eufemia, Dep't of Educ., CSC Docket No. 2012-28952013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 494Docket 2012-2895May 15, 2013
In re Guerieri et al., Department of Environmental Protection, CSC Dkt. Nos. 2012-35282013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 218April 5, 2013
In re Angel Lierena, Dep't. of Labor and Workforce Dev., CSC Dkt. No. 2011-42792013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 217April 4, 2013
Storekeeper. In re Norman Ehrke et al, Dep't of Transp., CSC Dkt. Nos. 2012-14302013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 215April 4, 2013
In re Craig Conway, Department of Corrections, CSC Docket No. 2010-40192013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 37Docket 2010-4019February 12, 2013

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 Vincent