The Commission denied the classification appeal of an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) seeking to be reclassified as a Program Coordinator III because she was unable to demonstrate that she performed the distinguishing duties of that title more than 50% of the time.
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of an employee of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) seeking to be reclassified as Environmental Analyst V as he was unable to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of that title more than 50% of the time.
The Commission dismissed the reclassification appeal of a UMass Amherst employee as he had no reasonable expectation of showing that he performed the duties of the requested classification of Technical Assistant III (TA III) a majority of the time.
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of three MassDOT employees seeking to be reclassified as Compliance Officer IIIs as they were unable to show that they performed the level-distinguishing duties of that title more than 50% of the time.
The Commission dismissed the appeal of an Insurance Examiner III (IE III) at the Division of Insurance (DOI) as he failed to first seek a review from the state’s Human Resources Division.
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of a DOR employee seeking to be reclassified as a Tax Examiner III as he was unable to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of that title more than 50% of the time.
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of a UMass Boston employee seeking reclassification to Accountant III as she was unable to show that she performed the level-distinguishing duties of that position more than 50% of the time. Reclassification to an alternate title was also not justified.
The Commission dismissed the reclassification appeal of a UMass Amherst employee as he had no reasonable expectation of showing that he performed the duties of the requested classification of Institutional Maintenance Foreman a majority of the time.
The Commission allowed the appeal of a state employee seeking reclassification to the position of Forester II as he performs the level distinguishing duties of this classification more than 50% of the time and he performs the supervisory responsibilities associated with this position.
The Commission dismissed the appeal of a UMASS Amherst employee seeking reclassification to the position of Technical Specialist II (TS II) wherethe undisputed facts show that he does not perform the level distinguishing duties of a TS II, and the request is more closely related to a change in pay grade.
