Classification Appeals

The Appellant was unable to show that he performed a majority of the duties of the higher tite more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher title more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the majority of the duties of the higher classification of Administrative Assistant II more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal denied.

The Appellant sought to be reclassified from a Human Resources Coordinator C to a Human Resources Coordinator D. However, a Human Resources Coordinator D is a second level supervisory position. There was no dispute that the Appellant did not perform the duties of a second level supervisor, even though he may have some core competencies for a Human Resources Coordinator D position. Appeal denied.

The Appeal for reclassification from a Clerk III to a Program Coordinator II was denied because the Appellant did not have adequate supervisory and budgetary responsibilities, even after assuming her superior's job. Furthermore, in the Quabbin District, the Forestry Program coordinator is the Head Forester, not a Program Coordinator, as in other districts. Thus, she has no program to coordinate. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant performs a majority of the duties of the higher title of GCI II more than 50% of the time. Appeal allowed.

Appellant did not perform the most complex assignments nor did he supervise any employees as is required to be classified as a CSES A/B. Thus, the Appellant's reclassification of a CSES A/B to a CSES C is denied because the Appellant did not perform the CSES C duties more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Commission denied the reclassification of the Appellant to Qualified Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor A/B from Recreation Therapist I because the Appellant's testimony confirmed that she did not seek a reclassification and was properly classified as such. The Appellant sought a retroactive pay date of March 30, 2003 rather than October 5, 2005. However, that is beyond the Civil Service Commission's jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.

Appellan'ts classification appeal dismissed as she was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of a Program Coordinator III more than 50% of the time.

Appellant did not perform the supervisory responsibilities more than 50% of the time that are necessary to be reclassified to a Vocational Instructor C from a Vocational Instruction A/B. Regardless of the Appellant's outstanding job performance, appeal was denied.

Appellant did not have the requisite supervision and budgetary responsibilities to be reclassified from an Administrative Assistant I to an Administrative Assistant II. Even though the Appellant supervised an intern, this was not considered adequate supervisory responsibility because the Appellant neither filled out an Employee Performance Review form nor was the intern a year-round employee. Appeal dismissed.

Appellant showed through a preponderance of evidence that she performed the duties of an Administrative Assistant I more than 50% of the time. She has no other clerical staff to supervise. However, this leaves all of the clerical duties to her. She is self - supervised and performs the duties of other Administrative Assistant Is on the campus. Therefore, her appeal was allowed.

The Appellant did not show that she performed a major of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time.

The Appellant, although an excellent employee, failed to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that he performed the duties for a CE IV more than 50% of the time. Even though the previous Permits Engineer and many other section heads are CE IV’s, the Appellant is correctly classified as a CE III, as this has little bearing on his classification. Appeal denied.

The Commission affirmed HRD's denial of the Appellant's reclassification request because he did not perform the supervisory duties or manage the most complex cases more than 50% of the time. Regardless of the fact that other CSES Cs perform the same duties due to a department reorganization, he is properly classified as a CSES A/B. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant failed to show that he performed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not perform the requisite testing, supervisory and inspection responsibilities that are part of the General Construction Inspector I position more than 50% of the time. Therefore, the Commission denied the appeal to be reclassified from Engineering Aide II to General Construction Inspector I. Appeal dismissed.

Appellant's reclassification appeal was denied because he failed to perform the investigative and law enforcement work associated with the Child Support Investigator A/B position. It is the Commission's decision that he is properly classified as a Child Support Enforcement Specialist C. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not show that she performed a major of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time.

The Appellant was able to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Appeal allowed.

The Appellant was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher title more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant showed that she performs the two level distinguishing duties between an LPN I and an LPN II more than 50% of the time: charge responsibility and on the job training. Thus, the Commission overturned HRD's denial of the Appellant's claim and finds that Appellant should be reclassified as an LPN II. Appeal allowed.

The Commission denied the Appointing Authority's motion for reconsideration because the motion did not identify any errors with the Commission's judgment of the case. Motion denied.

Appellant failed to show that she performed a majority of the duties of an Accountant I or Accountant II more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Commission denied this appeal because the appellant did not perform the necessary examination, analysis and interpretation more than 50% of the time that is required for the position of Accountant I. Rather, she performed the monitoring and summary responsibilities of a Clerk IV, thus she is properly classified.

The Appellant does not perform any of the necessary level distinguishing duties of Forest and Park Supervisor III more than 50% of the time. The Appellant does not: monitor the operation of a recreation area, represent the agency at meetings with government agencies and other parties, prepare the budget nor initiate requests for expenditures. The Appellant is properly classified as a Forest and Park Supervisor II. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant has not met his burden of proof to show that he should be reclassified as an Environmental Analyst III from a National Resources Specialist. The Appellant does not exercise the necessary supervisory responsibility for the Environmental Analyst III position. The Appellant may perform some of the duties of an Environmental Analyst III, but he lacks the higher technical and administrative duties of an Environmental Analyst III.

The classification that best fits the Appellant's duties and responsibilities is that of PC II and the Appellant has shown that she performs those duties more than 50% of the time on a regular basis throughout the year. Appeal allowed in part.

The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the majority of the duties of the higher classification sought more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Appellant does not meet the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II because she does not perform secondary level supervisory duties as is required for this position. However, the majority of her duties as Administrative Assistant II are very similar to other Program Coordinators at the EEC. Therefore, the Appellant is to be reclassified to Program Coordinator I. Appealed allowed in part.

The Appellant failed to show that he performs a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

Even though the Appellant may perform some of the duties of a Forest and Park Supervisor II, he does not do so more than 50% of the time. The Appellant lacks the responsibility for the oversight of the park, does not perform the supervisory duties that are requested of a Forest and Park nor does he make decisions regarding the maintenance of the park that are the level distinguishing duties of a Forest and Par Supervisor II. The Appellant is properly classified as a Forest and Park Supervisor I. Appeal denied.

The Commission affirmed HRD's denial of the Appellants' reclassification from BERS C to BERS D because they neither performed the more complex intake procedures of the Traditional Intake Unit nor exclusively supervised BERS Cs who perform more complicated work, more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was unable to show that he performed a majority of the duties in the higher classification more than 5j0% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Appellants did not show that they performed a major of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time.

The Appellant was unable to show that she performed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal denied.

The duties performed by the Appellant did not warrant a reclassification to Management Analyst II from Management Analyst I because she did not exercise the monitoring and decision-making duties of a Management Analyst II more than 50% of the time. Even though the Appellant's coworker may have been misclassified as a Management Analyst II performing an identical job to that of the Appellant's, this does not entitle the Appellant to a reclassification. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant does not perform the supervisory duties that are required for her reclassification from Accountant I to Contract Specialist II. These supervisory duties distinguish the Appellant's current position from that of Contract Specialist II, thus she does not perform the duties of Contract Specialist II more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not show that he peformed a majority of the duties of the higher title more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

Due to the lack of supervisory responsibility and evidence showing that the Appellant performed the duties of an EDP - SA III more than 50% of the time, the Appellant did not show that she is improperly classified as an EDP SA – II. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was unable to show that he peformed a majority of the duties of the higher position more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.

The Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as she does not perform supervisory functions nor does she handle the most complicated cases more than 50% of the time. Regardless of the fact that other CSES Cs perform the same duties due to a department reorganization, she is properly classified as a CSES A/B. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismised.

The Appellant does not perform audits, plan and direct team audits of businesses or develop guidelines for audit procedures more than 50% of the time. Each of these things is a level distinguishing duty of a Tax Auditor III, which the Appellant seeks to be reclassified to, from a Tax Examiner VI. Appeal denied.

Superior Court Affirmed Civil Service Commission's decision denying the reclassification appeal.

The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that she performed the duties of an EDP - SA III nor does she have the supervisory responsibility for this position and thus is classified property as an EDP- SA II. Furthermore, the Appellant's argument that HRD failed to provide a sufficient hearing is inappropriate as any review of HRD's procedure is reviewed de novo by the Commission. Appeal dismissed

The Appellant was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Appellant does not perform second level supervisory responsibilities nor does she perform the necessary analytical judgment to change procedures so that different goals may be reached. She also does not confer with management staff about the nature of the goals and objectives of the hospital. The Appellant, therefore does not perform the level distinguishing tasks more than 50% of the time to be reclassified from a Buyer III to a Buyer IV. Appeal denied.

Employee correctly classified in his current title. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not show that he peformed a majority of the duties of the higher title more than 50% of the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Apellant was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the duties of the higher classification more than 50% fo the time. Classification appeal dismissed.

The Appellant does not perform the requisite counseling duties that are required to be classified as a Rehabilitation Counselor A/B. The Appellant may perform some of the duties of a Rehabilitation Counselor but she does not perform them more than 50% of the time, thus her appeal was denied. Appeal dismissed.

The Appellant did not perform the requisite supervisory duties or the most complex assignments that are required for the, in lieu of supervisor responsibilities that are required for the CSEC C position more than 50% of the time. Regardless of the fact that other CSES Cs perform the same duties due to a department reorganization, she is properly classified as a CSES A/B. Appeal dismissed.

Appellant does not perform the requisite level distinguishing duties: supervisory responsibility and the oversight of the Medication Clinic, more than 50% of the time to be reclassified as an RN III from an RN II. Furthermore, this would create a conflict within the authority structure of the clinic by placing the Appellant at the same level as her supervisor. Appeal denied.

Appellant failed to show that she performed any of the supervision, training or complex issues consultation that distinguish a CSES C from a CSES A/B. Thus, the Appellant failed to show that she performed the duties of a CSES C more than 50% of the time and her appeal was denied. Even though, there are others who may be misclassified as a CSES C performing the same duties as the Appellant, this does not entitle her to a reclassification. Appeal denied.

The Appellant was unable to show that she peformed a majority of the functions of the higher title more than 50% of the time. Appeal dismissed.