| Date: | 10/16/2009 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Division of Administrative Law Appeals |
| Docket Number: | CR-08-319 |
Mark B. Crosbie is properly classified in Group 1, rather than Group 2, pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), because his regular and major duties do not require him to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision of prisoners.
The Petitioner, Mark B. Crosbie, appealed timely under G.L. c. 32, § 16(4) the April 25, 2008, decision of the Respondent, State Board of Retirement, to classify him in Group 1, rather than Group 2, for retirement purposes.
Mr. Crosbie elected to waive a hearing on the merits, and has elected instead to proceed on written submissions pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(10)(c). On June 9, 2008, Mr. Crosbie submitted a letter detailing his arguments, which I marked "A" for identification. He also attached eight documents as exhibits, which I have marked as Exhibits 1 through 8. The Board did not file a response to Mr. Crosbie's letter. Accordingly, the record closed June 9, 2008 upon receipt of the Respondent's brief.
Based on the evidence presented by the parties, I make the following findings of
fact:
1. Mark B. Crosbie works for the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) in the Mobile Maintenance Division. (Exs. A, 6.)
2. Since 1998, Mr. Crosbie has been an Institution Maintenance Foreman. The Official Position Description, Form 30, for the position of Institution Maintenance Foreman lists the following general duties and responsibilities: supervising and assisting in all aspects of the maintenance support unit functions and assigning various craftsmen their daily assignments. (Exs. 3, 6.)
3. Mr. Crosbie is supervised by the Director of Mobile Maintenance and the Director of the Maintenance Support Unit. (Ex. 6.)
4. Mr. Crosbie supervises a park foreman, the construction foreman and all carpenters, welders, plumbers, electricians, laborers and vocational students assigned to the Mobile Support Unit. (Ex. 6.)
5. Mr. Crosbie's detailed duties and responsibilities are largely managerial. They include determining work priorities and resources, evaluation of effectiveness of maintenance activities, evaluating employee work performance, providing on-the-job training, acquiring supplies, preparing daily work orders, and supervising and assigning trade school students. (Ex. 6.)
6. During the course of his employment with DCR and its predecessor agency, the Metropolitan District Commission, DCR has used prisoners to complete work on the Department's property. (Ex. 3.)
7. From time to time, Mr. Crosbie has provided supervision to the prisoners in their work. (Ex. 3.)
8. While the prisoners are working, they are in the custody of three corrections officers, who also supervise them. (Ex. A.)
9. Mr. Crosbie requested classification in Group 2 by completing a group classification questionnaire and returning it to the State Board of Retirement on March 20, 2008. (Ex. 3.)
10. On April 25, 2008, the Board informed Mr. Crosbie that his request for Group 2 classification was denied and that he was properly classified in Group 1. (Ex. 7.)
11. On May 8, 2008, Mr. Crosbie timely appealed the Board's decision to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals. (Ex. 8.)
The decision of the State Board of Retirement is affirmed. Mark B. Crosbie is properly classified in Group 1, rather than Group 2, for retirement purposes.
G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), provides for a system of classification of employees for retirement purposes. Group 1 includes "[o]fficials and general employees including clerical, administrative and technical workers, laborers, mechanics and all others not otherwise classified . . . ." G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). Group 2 includes in pertinent part "employees of the commonwealth or of any county, regardless of official classification . . . whose regular and major duties require them to have the care, custody, instruction or other supervision of prisoners." Id. (emphasis added).
The Petitioner contends that, since his job duties required him to provide supervision to the inmate work crews on DCR property, he meets the statutory requirements outlined in G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g), for classification in Group 2.
Classification is "properly based on the sole consideration of [the applicant's] duties at the time of retirement." Maddocks v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 369 Mass. 488, 494 (1975). The applicant's duties are largely determined by consulting his or her title or job description. See Gaw v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 250, 256 (1976).
After careful consideration of Mr. Crosbie's letter and the documents presented in this case, I conclude that Mr. Crosbie's regular and major duties consisted of supervising other DCR employees and performing administrative tasks, and not supervising prisoner work crews. Mr. Crosbie's job description contains primarily supervisory and administrative duties, including determining work priorities and resources, evaluating effectiveness of maintenance activities, evaluating employee work performance, providing on-the-job training, acquiring supplies, preparing daily work orders, and supervising and assigning trade school students.
While Mr. Crosbie may have come in contact with prisoners while discharging these duties, it is clear from his job description and his letter that he was not responsible for the "care, custody, instruction or other supervision of prisoners . . . ." G.L. c. 32, § 3(2)(g). The Petitioner believes that he is spending increasingly more time in the presence of prisoner work crews. This may be the case, but the custody and supervision of the prisoners is the responsibility of three corrections officers who accompanied the prisoner work crews.
He is, therefore, properly classified in Group 1 for retirement purposes. The decision of the Board is affirmed.
SO ORDERED.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
/s/ Kenneth J. Forton___________________________
Kenneth J. Forton
Administrative Magistrate
DATED: October 16, 2009
