Reclassification appeals dismissed; Appellants are actually seeking a reallocation of grade or title for which the Commission does not have jurisdiction.
Reclassification appeal allowed. Appellant has shown that she performs the level distinguishing duties of an Administrative Assistant I a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeals denied. The Appellants, all Review Examiner IIs, were not able to show that they performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel II a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant, a Program Coordinator I, was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.
Appellant does not perform the duties of General Construction Inspector II a majority of the time. Duties performed during voluntary overtime do not count toward calculation.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Personnel Analyst III a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel III.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Child Support Enforcement Specialist II a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Environmental Analyst IV a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellants do not perform the level distinguishing duties of Ranger III a majority of the time.
The Commission denied the Appellant's appeal as he was unable to show that he performs the duties of a Civil Engineer VI a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Counsel II 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.
Reclassification appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear reclassification appeals that are not first filed with HRD.
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 reclassification appeal as she was unable to show that she formed the level distinguishing duties of Tax Examiner III more than 50% of the time.
Superior Court affirmed Commission's decision denying the Appellant's reclassification appeal to Forest and Park Supervisor III.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of Forest and Park Supervisor 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.
Reclassification appeal dismissed. Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear reclassification appeals that are not first filed with HRD.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of an Auditor IV a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant was unable to show that he performs the level distinguishing duties of an RN V a majority of the time.
Classification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of Administrative Assistant. Commission dismissed with future effective date for matters related to a prior reclassification request.
Reclassification appeal from GCI I to GCI II denied. Appellant could not show he a majority of his time performing duties of higher classification.
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.
Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator I 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.
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 Commission denied the Appellant's reclassification appeal as he was unable to show that he performed the level-distinguishing duties of the title of District Maintenance Engineer more than 50% of the time.
Classification appeal denied. The Appellant failed to show that he performed the level distinguishing duties of a Civil Engineer V 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.
Classification appeal denied. The Appellant did not perform the level distinguishing duties of Program Coordinator I more than 50% of the time.
Reclassification appeal; GCI I to GCI II; appeal denied; Appellant did not meet minimum entrance requirements and did not perform duties of higher classification a majority of the time.
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.
Reclassification appeal denied. The Appellant was unable to show that she spent a majority of her time performing the level-distinguishing duties of a Customer Service Representative IV.
Since there is no dispute that the Appellant does not currently perform those CSR III duties a majority of her time, or that she has received out-of-grade pay retroactive to the date of her reclassification appeal being filed with MassDOT, the Commission is not empowered to grant further relief.
Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant unable to show that she performed the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator II a majority of the time.
Reclassification appeal denied. Appellant does not perform the level distinguishing duties of a Program Coordinator III a majority of the time.