Following a pre-hearing conference that I conducted on December 16, 2025, I assigned the two related, above-captioned reclassification appeals to the Civil Service Commission’s General Counsel, attorney Robert L. Quinan, Jr., for adjudication purposes. He then proceeded to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on behalf of the Commission on February 20, 2026.
Pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01 (11) (c), the Commission’s General Counsel issued the attached Tentative Summary Decision on June 24, 2026, recommending the dismissal of the Appellants’ appeals—in which they both sought to be reclassified from the Maintenance Technician II position they currently hold to the title of Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist. The parties had thirty days thereafter to proffer written objections to the Commission. On July 1, 2026, the Appellants filed a joint short written objection to the Tentative Decision.
The Appellants assert that the Commission should order all parties in this case to appear before a mediator “in an attempt to resolve the issue with compromise.” The Commission acknowledges that the Appellants have raised a nonfrivolous pay equity issue but the Commission is not the forum in which to resolve any such dispute. Importantly, the Commission has only the authority that the Legislature has elected to confer upon it through statutory enactments or special legislative acts. The Appellants have not pointed to any provision of the classification statute, G.L. c. 30—and the Commission discerns none—that authorizes the Commission either to adjudicate a pay equity claim or to order a state entity such as the Respondent University of Massachusetts to engage in a dispute resolution process such as mediation. The Respondent might voluntarily elect to mediate the issue the Appellants have presented; alternatively, the union to which both Appellants belong might choose to exert any available leverage it possesses to persuade the Respondent to address the Appellants’ concerns. The Commission, however, is not empowered to play any role in any such process.
On the merits of the Appellants’ reclassification appeals, the Commission concludes that no relief is possible under G.L. c. 30. For the reasons stated in the attached Tentative Decision, the Appellants have never performed the duties that distinguish the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist (CRSS) title from the functions performed by Maintenance Technician II employees at the Respondent university. In short, the Appellants plainly do not satisfy the key legal test for a successful reclassification appeal: that (in this case) the Appellants spend more than 50% of their time performing the distinguishing duties attributed to the CRSS position in the classification specifications promulgated by the Commonwealth’s Human Resources Division.
One additional, insuperable barrier to relief here is that, notwithstanding disclaimers, the Appellants effectively are seeking a reclassification of the entire group of Maintenance Technicians II employed at the university. The final sentence of the statute granting the Commission jurisdiction to hear any reclassification appeal (G.L. c. 30, § 49) states: “The provisions of this section, as they relate to appeals on the reallocation of a class or group of classes to a higher job group or job groups, shall not apply to any employee whose position is included in a collective bargaining unit represented by an employee organization certified in accordance with the provisions of section four of chapter one hundred and fifty E.” There can be no dispute that the Appellants’ position (however labeled) is a position within a bargaining unit represented by a labor union certified under G.L. c. 150E, § 4. Any effort, then, to have the compensation associated with this position equalized with the pay accorded CRSS employees cannot be entertained by this Commission under G.L. c. 30, § 49.
After careful review and consideration, the Commission today voted to affirm and adopt the Tentative Decision issued by General Counsel Quinan, thus making the attached decision, together with this document, the Final Decision of the Commission.
Accordingly, the Appellants’ appeals under docket numbers C-25-253 and C-25-254 are hereby dismissed.
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein, Commissioners) on July 9, 2026.
Civil Service Commission
/s/ Christopher C. Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case. A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision.
Under the provisions of G.L. c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision. After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
Notice to:
Andrew L. Cook (Appellant)
Philip Robinson (Appellant)
Rachel Siano (for Respondent)
Michele Heffernan, Esq. (HRD)
Tentative Decision
On October 23, 2025, the Appellants, Andrew Cook and Philip Robinson, acting pursuant to G.L. c. 30, § 49, appealed to the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) from decisions of the Commonwealth’s Human Resources Division (“HRD”) affirming the University of Massachusetts - Amherst’s denial of their requests to reclassify their positions from Maintenance Technician II to Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist (“CRSS”). The Respondent UMass-Amherst moved to dismiss on timeliness grounds and also contested the appeals on the merits. For the reasons stated below, I recommend that these appeals be dismissed as untimely and, alternatively, denied on the merits.
Findings of Fact
The parties entered 42 exhibits (26 Respondent exhibits and 16 Appellant exhibits, including post-hearing submissions). Based on the exhibits entered into evidence and the testimony of the following witnesses:
Called by UMass Amherst:
- Jazlyn Christie, Classified Compensation Specialist
- Michael Aldrich, Interim Director of Grounds and Events
Called by the Appellants:
- Andrew Cook, Appellant
- Philip Robinson, Appellant
- LeeAnn Robinson, AFSCME Local 1776 President
and taking administrative notice of all matters filed in the case, pertinent law, and reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, a preponderance of the evidence establishes the following facts:
1. Andrew Cook and Philip Robinson are employees of the University of Massachusetts – Amherst (UMass-Amherst). Cook has served as a Maintenance Technician II since December 10, 2017, and Robinson has served as a Maintenance Technician II since September 16, 2018. (Resp. Exhs. 16, 17, 18)
2. In the late summer of 2021, Cook and Robinson each initiated internal classification appeals seeking reclassification from Maintenance Technician II to Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist. Robinson submitted to UMass-Amherst’s human resources department an appeal dated August 27, 2021, while Cook’s appeal was dated September 8, 2021. (Resp. Exhs. 1, 2)
3. Cook’s requested title was identified during the audit process as “Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist – Watch Tour,” and Robinson likewise sought reclassification to the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist title. (Resp. Exhs. 6, 7)
4. The older Form 30s for the Appellants’ positions described the Maintenance Technician role as installing, maintaining, finishing, and/or repairing architectural hardware, building or building system components, structural elements, equipment or furnishings within Housing Services structures, using carpentry, masonry, and painting skills, as well as minor electrical-related or plumbing-related work not requiring a license. (Resp. Exhs. 3, 4)
5. The older Form 30s for the Appellants’ positions required three years of full-time experience and demonstrated competence in the carpentry, masonry, and painting trades, together with a valid Massachusetts Class D driver’s license, and, depending on assignment, a Class B commercial driver’s license or ability to obtain one. (Resp. Exhs. 3, 4)
6. The current position description for Cook states that a Maintenance Technician II maintains buildings and related structures by applying appropriate skills and methods in painting, carpentry, and masonry, and further describes work including routine maintenance and emergency calls, carpentry work, painting, masonry, demolition, layout, blueprint reading, customer service, and operation of a motor vehicle. (Resp. Exh. 24)
7. The current position description for Robinson contains materially the same description of the Maintenance Technician II role. (Resp. Exh. 25)
8. The current position descriptions for both Appellants require three years of full-time experience in painting, plus demonstrated competence in carpentry and masonry, together with a current valid Class D driver’s license. As contrasted with documents defining CRSS positions, neither current position description for Appellants’ position (Maintenance Technician II) requires EPA chlorofluorocarbon-handling (CFC) certification, Metasys certification, or prior technical experience in digital, pneumatic, electric, electronic, or computerized control systems. (Resp. Exhs. 24, 25, 26)
9. Within the Maintenance Technician series, the distinguishing feature of the Maintenance Technician II level is demonstrated proficiency and performance of duties in three or more skilled trades. (Resp. Exh. 19)
10. The Maintenance Technician series specification further includes among its examples of duties work on walls, stairs, floors, ceilings, windows, doors, roofs, gutters, locks, air conditioners, mail boxes, shelving, painting, glazing, masonry, HVAC inspection and repair, minor plumbing-related work not requiring a license, minor electrical-related work not requiring a license, and operation of a bucket truck or other motor vehicle. (Resp. Exh. 19)
11. The Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist series specification states that incumbents install, maintain, and repair heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and other control systems, including troubleshooting, monitoring, and repairing pneumatic, electric, electronic, electro-mechanical, direct digital, and computerized controls. The basic purpose of the work is to install, monitor, and repair various types of control systems. (Resp. Exh. 20)
12. Additionally, the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist series specification requires knowledge and skills related to those computer software programs and networks specific to UMass-Amherst’s building control systems. CRSS positions require at least two years of full-time technical experience in the installation, troubleshooting, maintenance, and repair of HVAC, refrigeration, and other control systems, together with EPA CFC certification. (Resp. Exh. 20)
13. The Respondent includes several different positions within the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist classification, including a Building Maintenance Response Technician/Watch Tour position, a Fume Hood controls position, and a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems (HVAC) position. Those jobs are all Grade 16 positions, in contrast to the Appellant’s Grade 14 position, and reflect duties and qualifications materially more specialized than those set out in the Appellants’ Maintenance Technician II position descriptions. (Resp. Exh. 21)
14. The Building Maintenance Response Technician (BMRT), also referred to as Watch Tour, is a working title within the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist classification. Its position materials describe the role as acting as the first responder for off-shift Metasys building operations alarms, loss of (or excessive) temperature calls, emergency and routine repairs, alarm resets, card-access issues, and custodial or safety-related calls, while maintaining logs, requisitioning materials, and working rotating off-shift schedules. (Resp. Exhs. 2, 6, 21)
15. The Watch Tour/BMRT position also requires, among other things, demonstrated competence in the HVAC, pumps, and compressor trades; knowledge and ability to access and monitor the Metasys Building Operations System; Metasys Operator Certification within six months of hire; and asbestos-awareness training within six months of hire. (Resp. Exh. 21)
16. The Fume Hood and HVAC Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist positions require work involving Building Automation Systems (BAS); calibration, diagnosis, repair, and replacement of direct digital controls and pneumatic, electro-mechanical, and electronic components; monitoring BAS-connected equipment, adjusting set points and schedules as necessary, or troubleshooting programming; and working with building control schematics and logic diagrams. (Resp. Exh. 21)
17. The University facilities organizational chart in evidence distinguishes Maintenance Technician II positions, which are grade 14 positions, from separate “Controls Tech, Controls-Fume Hoods, Refrig Tech, and Watch Tour” positions, which are grade 16 positions. The chart identifies Cook and Robinson within the Maintenance Technician II cohort and separately identifies several Watch Tour positions as grade 16. (Resp. Exh. 18)
18. In a Building Maintenance department recommendation dated October 16, 2023, submitted as part of the Respondent’s internal classification review process, a senior manager named Steve Lemay stated that his department did not support reclassification of the Maintenance Technician II (MT II) position to Controls and Refrigeration Specialist. Lemay further wrote that none of the identified MT II incumbents, including Cook and Robinson, had work related to controls or refrigeration in their job descriptions or had been asked to perform the duties of a Controls and Refrigeration Specialist. (Resp. Exh. 5)
19. In Cook’s interview guide, he articulated as ground for appeal that he and other MT IIs believed they were doing the same job as Watch Tour Controls and Refrigeration System Specialists; that Watch Tour responded to emergency calls on off-shifts, whereas the Appellants did identical work during day shifts and often completed the job; and that the Appellants regularly filled in for absent Watch Tour colleagues but were not paid equally for that work. (Resp. Exh. 6)
20. In Robinson’s interview guide, he articulated as grounds for appeal internal inequities and the grade disparity between his position and the Watch Tour position. Robinson’s submission asserted that Watch Tour had historically been a grade 14 position, had later been upgraded into the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist classification at grade 16, and that all the while the Appellants continued to perform similar work to Watch Tour employees. (Resp. Exh. 7)
21. In the Appellants’ respective interview guides, they described the basic purpose of the MT II position as maintaining and repairing buildings and equipment while maintaining a safe working and living environment on campus by responding to, resolving, or escalating issues, including emergencies, and performing any maintenance and repair work that does not require a license, depending on campus needs. (Resp. Exhs. 6 and 7)
22. The Appellants’ respective interview guides further stated that, following the February 2023 merger of the Residential Life and the Physical Plant units within the Building Maintenance department, the MT IIs’ workload increased substantially (becoming more reactive in terms of focusing more on emergencies rather than preventative maintenance); their work zones became much larger, as fewer technicians were covering a significantly larger number of buildings; and technicians were now expected to assess sites, identify needed materials, retrieve such materials from the central store, and enter work-order information themselves. (Resp. Exhs. 6 and 7)
23. Cook’s interview guide listed specific examples of actual MT II duties he performed, such as changing control knobs on hydrostatic equipment, changing HVAC filters, replacing fuses, removing and replacing walls, and evaluating heating systems. (Resp. Exh. 6)
24. Robinson’s interview guide noted that his actual duties were seasonally variable but consisted largely of responding to service calls and completing projects in HVAC, carpentry and mechanical lock work, painting, masonry, miscellaneous calls, administrative work, and customer service. Robinson specifically listed HVAC troubleshooting, repair and replacement of air-conditioning and heating units, responses to complaints about banging pipes and floods, triage of requests, lock and automatic door work, painting, masonry repairs, and pest-control-type calls. He asserted that MT IIs regularly interacted with the Metasys system in the course of HVAC-related work. (Resp. Exh. 7)
25. Both interview guides described substantial interaction with campus community members, students, faculty, staff, other trades workers, contractors, and supervisors, and both described the need for customer service, professional judgment, and coordination with others in carrying out maintenance and repair work. (Resp. Exhs. 6, 7)
26. Both interview guides described the Appellants as having no direct subordinates but sometimes providing project-based or functional supervision to temporary workers, student workers, trades workers, or lower-graded maintenance staff as needed. (Resp. Exhs. 6, 7)
27. Both interview guides also described working conditions that included heights, ladders, scaffolding, confined spaces, extreme temperatures, outdoor conditions, hazardous or contaminated areas, lab settings, and stress associated with work or interactions in student residences and other occupied buildings. Both interview guides described the Appellants as operating ordinary maintenance and trade equipment such as hand or power tools, bucket trucks, and some specialized HVAC-related equipment. (Resp. Exhs. 6, 7)
28. Cook’s interview guide noted training he had undergone in safe handling of asbestos or lead paint, safe work practices in confined spaces, and lab safety. Neither interview guide identified EPA CFC certification, refrigeration licensure, or prior technical experience in digital, pneumatic, electronic, or computerized controls as required qualifications of their present positions. (Resp. Exhs. 6, 7)
29. In the additional information section of Cook’s interview guide, Cook stated that the Maintenance Technician II series emphasized three core skills out of five skills associated with the title and yet asserted that he was performing all five skills, including HVAC and lock shop work in addition to carpentry, masonry, and painting. (Resp. Exh. 6)
30. In the additional information section of Robinson’s interview guide, Robinson stated that he regularly performed four trades as part of his job—carpentry, painting, masonry, and HVAC—and that glazing was also a skill set, while also stating that Watch Tour personnel often referred repair work to zone maintenance staff for completion. (Resp. Exh. 7)
31. The preliminary decision on Cook’s appeal concluded that his responsibilities included skilled trades work in carpentry, painting, glazing, HVAC, masonry, and minor electrical-related or plumbing-related work not requiring a license, and further concluded that those duties were most closely aligned with the Maintenance Technician series of class specifications. (Resp. Exh. 8)
32. The preliminary decision on Robinson’s appeal concluded that the MT II positions maintained buildings and related structures by applying skills and methods in painting, carpentry, and masonry and that this Appellant’s current duties and responsibilities were of a similar level and tenor as the Maintenance Technician II title. (Resp. Exh. 9)
33. After internal hearings held in 2024, the University issued hearing decisions denying both appeals and finding that the duties and responsibilities being performed were not appropriate for the classification of Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist, grade 16. (Resp. Exhs. 10, 11)
34. After further review, the University’s Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer issued final decisions on November 4, 2024, concurring with the hearing decisions and finding that the level and tenor of the duties being performed were appropriately contained within the classification of Maintenance Technician II, job grade 14. (Resp. Exhs. 12, 13)
35. HRD thereafter issued decisions on September 11, 2025, for Cook and September 9, 2025, for Robinson, concurring with the University’s determinations and finding that the duties being performed greater than 51 percent of the time did not warrant reallocation of their positions. (Resp. Exhs. 14, 15)
36. The Appellants’ Commission appeal petitions were filed on October 23, 2025, some six weeks after the HRD decisions had issued. (App. Exh. 1; Resp. Exhs. 16, 17)
37. As to the timing of the appeal to this Commission the Appellants initiated, both testified that they are not technically proficient (which I took to mean computer-savvy) and needed assistance in preparing and submitting their appeals, and that the person from whom they expected assistance (apparently a union business manager) was “in and out” of the office during the relevant six-week period. Cook also stated that the Appellants had been awaiting guidance from their union president. (Hearing Testimony; App. Exhs. 15, 16)
Legal Standard
General Laws c. 30, § 49 permits a Commonwealth employee objecting to a classification affecting his office or position to appeal first to HRD and then to the Civil Service Commission, which hears the matter as if originally entered before it. The Commission has consistently treated a reclassification appeal as a narrow position-allocation proceeding, not as a generalized pay-equity claim or an invitation to redesign the Commonwealth’s classification system. See Strongv. Department of Public Health, 37 MCSR 193, 193-94 (2024); Leahy v. Human Resources Division, 35 MCSR 18, 18-19 (2022); Nabulsi v. MassDOT, 36 MCSR 38, 39-40 (2023).
The appellant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the present position is misclassified. The Commission repeatedly states the test in majority-of-time terms: the employee must establish that he or she performs the higher title’s level-distinguishing duties the majority of the time, usually at least fifty percent. See Roscoe v. Department of Environmental Protection, 15 MCSR 47, 47 (2002), quoted in Leahy, 35 MCSR at 18, and Zeller v. EOHHS, 31 MCSR 161, 161-62 (2018); see also Pellegrino v. Department of State Police, 18 MCSR 261 (2005).
Just as important, the Commission focuses on the distinguishing duties of the higher title. Duties common to both the lower and higher classifications do not establish entitlement to reclassification. See Leahy, 35 MCSR at 18-19; Zeller, 31 MCSR at 161-62; Lannigan v. Department of Developmental Services, 30 MCSR 494, 494 (2017); Saunders v. Department of Labor Standards, 32 MCSR 413, 415 (2019).
Where a classification specification is outdated, the Commission may read it pragmatically and supplement it with more recent formal job descriptions, organizational charts, work product, and testimony. But that flexibility is interpretive, not legislative; the Commission does not create a new classification or relax the burden of proof merely because the specifications are old. See Strong, 37 MCSR at 199.
The Commission has also stressed the limited nature of the remedy in reclassification cases. The ordinary relief, when an appellant prevails, is reallocation effective as of the appeal date identified in § 49, with such retroactive compensation as the statute permits. But the Commission does not use an individual reclassification appeal to award broad pay-equity relief, to restructure an entire bargaining-unit classification system, or to award retroactive compensation untethered to §§ 49 and 57. See Nabulsi, 36 MCSR at 39-40; Davidson, 20 MCSR 583, 583-84 (2007).
As to timeliness, § 49 does not itself prescribe a filing deadline for an appeal from HRD to the Commission. In the absence of a statute-specific deadline, the Commission applies 801 CMR 1.01(6)(b), which requires a notice of claim to be filed within thirty days of the agency notice of action.
The Appellants' Position
The Appellants contend that their jobs have evolved beyond the traditional contours of a Maintenance Technician II position and now mirror the higher-paid Watch Tour / Building Maintenance Response Technician function within the CRSS series. They argue that the University has analyzed the wrong comparator by focusing too heavily on the broad CRSS title and on specialized controls-related functions, rather than on the Watch Tour/BMRT role that they say they actually resemble in practice.
Their position, as reflected in their interview materials and hearing testimony, is that they serve as day-shift first responders to building issues, perform emergency and routine response work across a large number of campus buildings, handle HVAC-related and building-systems problems, and perform all or nearly all of the duties associated with Watch Tour/BMRT for a majority of their time.
They further maintain that they often go beyond mere triage by actually completing repairs themselves, and that the disparity between their title and compensation and that of Watch Tour personnel reflects a real misclassification rather than merely an internal-equity concern.
The Respondent's Position
The Respondent argues first that these appeals must be dismissed as untimely because the Appellants did not file their Commission appeals within thirty days of HRD’s denial letters, and because the explanations they have offered—waiting for assistance, technical difficulties, absentee issues, and similar logistical problems—do not excuse noncompliance with the filing deadline.
On the merits, the Respondent argues that the Appellants are already properly classified as Maintenance Technician II employees because the duties they actually perform are generic multi-trade building-maintenance duties squarely encompassed within the broad Maintenance Technician specification, including carpentry, painting, masonry, lock work, general HVAC work, emergency response, and related campus maintenance tasks.
According to the Respondent, the Appellants have not shown that they spend a majority of their work time performing the level-distinguishing duties of the CRSS classification, which centers on installation, monitoring, troubleshooting, and repair of control systems. The Respondent also argues that comparison to Watch Tour/BMRT employees, standing alone, cannot establish entitlement to reclassification, particularly where the Watch Tour materials themselves reflect a distinct off-shift, alarm-response, Metasys, logging, and certification-based role within the CRSS series.
Analysis
1. Timeliness
The chronology is straightforward. HRD denied Robinson’s appeal on September 9, 2025 and Cook’s appeal on September 11, 2025. Both Commission appeals were filed on October 23, 2025. On those dates alone, the appeals were not filed within thirty days of the HRD denial letters as mandated by 801 CMR 1.01(6)(b).
The Appellants do not seriously dispute that chronology. Instead, they offered explanations for the delayed filing, including waiting for union guidance, lack of technical proficiency, office absences, reliance on an office manager or other assistant, and a busy time on campus. I treat those explanations as sincere factual assertions in the record. But they do not change the dispositive fact that the Commission appeals were filed outside the thirty-day period applied under 801 CMR 1.01(6)(b).
The Respondent is correct that the Commission previously has treated filing deadlines as jurisdictional and has enforced them strictly. See McGoldrick v. Boston Police Department, 30 MCSR 161 (2017). For that reason alone, I recommend that these appeals be dismissed as untimely.
2. Alternative Merits Analysis
If the Commission were to reach the merits, the appeals should still be denied.
The central difficulty for the Appellants is the same difficulty the Commission identified in Leahy, Zeller, and Nabulsi: overlap is not enough. The question is not whether the Appellants perform some HVAC-related work, some emergency-response work, or some work that resembles functions performed by Watch Tour/BMRT staff. The question is whether they proved that their positions, as actually performed, are more accurately characterized by the higher CRSS title because they spend the majority of their time performing that higher title’s distinguishing duties. See Leahy, 35 MCSR at 18-19; Zeller, 31 MCSR at 161-62; Nabulsi, 36 MCSR at 39-40.
On this record, they did not make that showing.
Based on the documentary record as a whole, including the position descriptions, classification specifications, interview guides, organizational chart, and the successive review decisions, the work actually described by the Appellants is broad multi-trade building maintenance work involving carpentry, painting, masonry, HVAC-related repair, lock work, site assessment, materials procurement, emergency response, customer service, and incidental functional supervision. That work maps more closely to the Maintenance Technician II specification, which expressly encompasses multi-trade building maintenance and repair work, including HVAC-related work and minor electrical and plumbing work not requiring a license, than to the Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist specification.
The CRSS classification, by contrast, is centered on something more specialized: the installation, monitoring, troubleshooting, maintenance, and repair of control systems, including pneumatic, electric, electronic, electro-mechanical, direct digital, and computerized controls. The CRSS sample positions in the record reinforce that distinction. The Fume Hood and HVAC examples are deeply focused on BAS, DDC, calibration, programming, monitoring, and controls expertise.
Although the record contains Watch Tour/BMRT materials showing a certain amount of overlap with certain emergency-response and non-licensed repair duties performed by the Appellants, those materials also reflect a distinct Grade-16 role with off-shift alarm and Metasys responsibilities, logging and security functions, rotating shifts, and qualifications tied to HVAC, pumps, compressors, and Metasys certification.
The Appellants’ own interview materials do not describe them as spending the majority of their work time installing, calibrating, programming, monitoring, troubleshooting, or repairing the computerized, digital, pneumatic, electronic, or other control systems that distinguish the CRSS classification and the more specialized CRSS example positions. Cook described emergencies, triage, materials procurement, carpentry, painting, masonry, lockshop, and HVAC tasks. Robinson described HVAC troubleshooting, repair and replacement of units, lock work, painting, masonry, administrative duties, customer service, and some use of Metasys. That evidence shows that both Appellants are capable, versatile, and highly experienced Maintenance Technician II employees. It does not show that their actual positions are, in substance, controls-specialist positions.
The Appellants’ strongest argument is the Watch Tour/BMRT comparison. I understand why they pressed it. Their evidence and testimony suggest that, in their view, day-shift maintenance staff and Watch Tour staff overlap substantially in responding to urgent calls and building problems, and that the Watch Tour role became the practical benchmark for a perceived inequity. But Nabulsi is instructive here. There, the appellant’s more persuasive argument was not that he actually performed the higher title’s distinguishing duties, but that his responsibilities were equivalent in scale with a higher-paid coworker and he deserved similar compensation. The Commission recognized the intuitive force of that pay-parity argument yet still rejected it because § 49 asks the narrower classification question. See Nabulsi, 36 MCSR at 39-40.
That same distinction matters here. Even if the Appellants proved a meaningful overlap with Watch Tour/BMRT, overlap does not itself establish that they perform the CRSS classification’s distinguishing duties for a majority of time. Nor may the Commission use an individual reclassification appeal to remedy a broader internal-equity concern within a bargaining-unit structure. See Nabulsi, 36 MCSR at 40.
The repeated conclusions reached during the University’s internal review process and by HRD are consistent with the specifications and job materials in the record. Each reviewing body concluded that the level and tenor of the work performed remained within Maintenance Technician II bounds, and HRD specifically concluded that the duties actually performed, greater than 51 percent of the time, did not warrant reallocation. While those agency determinations are not binding on the Commission’s de novo review, they do align with the more persuasive documentary evidence here.
In sum, the Appellants have shown that their jobs are demanding, that their work has evolved, that they perform multiple trades, and that they believe they are underclassified relative to Watch Tour/BMRT personnel. What they have not shown is the thing § 49 requires: that their actual positions fit the higher CRSS title because they perform its distinguishing duties a majority of the time. Roscoe teaches that the determining factor is the distribution of time; Leahy and Lannigan teach that overlapping duties do not carry the burden; and Strong teaches that even when old specifications require a pragmatic reading, the Commission still must fit the job into the existing classification structure rather than create a new one.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the appeals of Andrew Cook and Philip Robinson, Docket Nos. C-25-253 and C-25-254, be dismissed as untimely.
In the alternative, if the Commission were to reach the merits, I recommend that the appeals be denied because the Appellants have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that their positions warrant reclassification from Maintenance Technician II to Controls and Refrigeration Systems Specialist. The more persuasive evidence shows that the duties they actually perform map more closely to the Maintenance Technician II classification than to the more specialized CRSS classification they seek. Any pay inequity issues must be resolved through a separate labor-management process.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Robert L. Quinan, Jr.
Robert L. Quinan, Jr.
Presiding Officer
Notice to:
Andrew L. Cook (Appellant)
Philip Robinson (Appellant)
Rachel Siano (for Respondent)
Michele Heffernan, Esq. (HRD)
Date issued: June 24, 2026
- HRD’s letter referenced G.L. c. 30, § 49, which does not specify the 30-day appeal period. It also cited the main CSC website page, which also does not mention the 30-day appeal period—but which does feature several how to file an appeal and learn more webpages that explicitly reference the 30-day deadline. In any event, it would behoove HRD to expressly reference the appeal period in its letters denying appeals to inform recipients of all applicable deadlines.
