The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Recreation Therapist III to Program Coordinator III, as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a PC III a majority of the time.
The Commission denied the Appellant’s request for reclassification as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator I a majority of her time.
The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Engineering Aide II to General Construction Inspector I as he failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of the higher classification a majority of the time. Rather, he is a properly classified EA-II who has histori
The Civil Service Commission denied the Appellant’s appeal to be reclassified from Program Coordinator II to Program Coordinator III as she failed to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of the higher classification a majority of the time.
The Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as he was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Construction Coordinator a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal allowed. In the unique position that she occupies at PRHC, the majority of her duties are most properly described to be more consistent with the responsibilities of an RN-III (the title that her predecessor held) than an RN-II.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he continuously performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer III a majority of the time.
Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I a majority of the time.
Classification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.
