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.
The Commission denied the reclassification appeal of a DOR employee as she was unable to show that she performed the level-distinguishing duties of the next higher title of Program Coordinator III more than 50% of the time.
The Commission adopted the tentative decision of the DALA Magistrate and denied the reclassification appeal of a DMH employee seeking reclassification to Mental Health Coordinator II as she was unable to show that she performs the level distinguishing duties of that title.
The Commission adopted the tentative decision of the DALA Magistrate and denied the reclassification appeal of a DOR employee seeking to be reclassified as a Program Coordinator I as she was unable to show that she performs the level distinguishing duties of that higher title.
The Commission dismissed the classification appeal of a DPH employee based on the undisputed fact that she does not possess the minimum entrance requirements of the requested higher classification of Health Care Facility Inspector I.
The Commission allowed the reclassification appeal of a nurse at Western Massachusetts Hosptial as she was able to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of an RN V a majority of the time.
The Commission denied the Appellant’s reclassification appeal given that she was unable to show that she regularly performed the level-distinguishing duties of a Customer Service Representative III more than 50% of the time.
The Commission adopted the Tentative Decision of the DALA Magistrate and denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as he failed to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of Federal Aid Coordinator V more than 50% of time.
The Commission denied the Appellant’s reclassification appeal as he was unable to show that he regularly performed the level-distinguishing duties of an Environmental Analyst V more than 50% of the time.
