(Merit System Board, decided March 14, 2007)

Transcription

1 In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis, Supervisor Central Warehouse (PS0330H), Department of Health and Senior Services DOP Docket No (Merit System Board, decided March 14, 2007) Jeffrey Davis appeals the determination of the Division of Selection Services that found that, per the substitution clause for education, he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Supervisor Central Warehouse (PS0330H), Department of Health and Senior Services. The examination at issue was announced with a closing date of May 22, 2006, and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. These requirements, which had to be met as of the closing date, included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor s degree, and three years of comprehensive experience in warehouse or stockroom work involving determining of stockage levels, requisitioning, purchasing, maintaining and issuing automotive, heavy equipment, electrical, construction, or maintenance equipment, materials, and supplies, and/or the receiving, inventorying, storing and distributing of various office equipment, records and files, office supplies and materials, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute experience as indicated on a year for year basis. The appellant was found to be ineligible based on a lack of experience, per the substitution clause for education. As no candidates were admitted, the examination was cancelled on October 20, On his application, Mr. Davis indicated that he possessed no college credits. Thus, per the substitution clause for education, he needed to possess seven years of qualifying experience. On his application and resume, appellant listed seven positions: 1) provisional Supervisor Central Warehouse from September 2005 to the closing date, May 2006; 2) Supply Support Technician 1 from March 2004 to September 2005; 3) Principal Stock Clerk from August 2001 to March 2004; 4) Senior Stock Clerk from November 1997 to August 2001; 5) Stock Clerk from September 1995 to November 1997; 6) Messenger from February 1995 to September 1995; and 7) Driver Coordinator from August 1989 to March He was credited with two years, one month of applicable experience in the first two positions. Therefore, he was found to be lacking four years, eleven months of experience. On appeal, the appellant lists his duties for his various positions and he concludes that he meets the requirements. He also submits a letter from his

2 2 supervisor who believes that the appellant exceeds the minimum requirements. Further, the Director of Human Resources Services wrote a letter of support, and in it she notes that the appellant indicated in his appeal letter that he performed relevant duties while holding lower titles. However, neither the Director nor the supervisor confirmed that the appellant performed out-of-title work. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the announced closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) provides that except when permitted by the Merit System Board for good cause, such as a documented affirmative action basis, applicants for promotional examinations with open competitive requirements may not use experience gained as a result of out-of-title work to satisfy the requirements for admittance to the examination or for credit in the examination process. CONCLUSION Appellant was correctly deemed to be ineligible for the subject examination since he lacked four years, eleven months of required experience. Titles are categorized as professional, para-professional or non-professional. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)1 states that professional titles require at least a Bachelor s or higher level degree, with or without a clause to substitute experience. Thus, since the Supervisor Central Warehouse title requires completion of a Bachelor s degree with a substitution clause, which permits additional experience in lieu of the college credits, as well as relevant experience, it is considered a professional title. Appellant s prior held State titles do not require a Bachelor s degree and therefore are not professional titles. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)3 states that nonprofessional titles require less than 60 general college credits or less than 12 specific college credits, while N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(a)2 states that para-professional titles require at least 60 general college credits or 12 or more specific college credits (but less than a full degree). As such, the titles Supply Support Technician 1, Principal Stock Clerk, Senior Stock Clerk, and Stock Clerk are considered nonprofessional titles since they do not require completion of any college credits. When a promotion would be between the above noted categories, N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.5(c)2 permits the examination to be open to applicants who are permanent in an approved bridge title(s) and/or applicants who meet the complete open competitive requirements. As there is no bridge title for Supervisor Central Warehouse, the appellant is required to meet the open competitive requirements. On appeal, the appellant emphasizes the dual nature of the comprehensive experience. He points out that the experience involved determining of stockage levels, requisitioning, purchasing, maintaining and issuing automotive, heavy equipment, electrical, construction, or maintenance equipment, materials, and

3 3 supplies, and/or the receiving, inventorying, storing and distributing of various office equipment, records and files, office supplies and materials. He then explained that as a Messenger, he processed mail 60% of the time; he received, inventoried and distributed laboratory specimens 30% of the time; and he monitored and delivered office supplies, materials and equipment for 10% of the time. He provides a percentage of time breakdown for each of his lower level positions, assigns months of work to each one, and concludes that he possesses seven years of applicable experience. As to appellant s position as a Driver Coordinator from August 1989 to March 1994, the appellant states that he coordinated the daily specimen pick up of medical waste, maintained vehicles and ensured that they were loaded properly, checked purchase orders against invoices, and trained and supervised staff. Clearly, the appellant s duties in this position are not the same as the announced experience. Qualifying experience has the announced experience as the primary focus. As a Messenger from February 1995 to September 1995, the appellant indicates that he sorted, processed and delivered mail; worked with specimen receiving; and transported stock. The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. The appellant explains in his appeal that he delivered mail for 60% of the time. As a Messenger, this would also be the most important duty. If he monitored and delivered office supplies, materials and equipment, this would be an ancillary duty, not the primary focus of the position. As such, this experience is inapplicable. The duties which he listed for Principal Stock Clerk, Senior Stock Clerk and Stock Clerk are consistent with the job specifications for those titles. The information submitted on the application indicates that the appellant did not perform out-of-title work while in those titles. For these positions, the appellant performed related work at the lower level, that is, it was not comprehensive warehouse or stockroom work. An experience requirement that lists a number of duties which define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. As a Stock Clerk, the appellant indicates that he received stock, processed printed material orders, kept track of forms (250 different forms), processed mail, and transported stock. These duties do not include the entire scope of determining stockage levels, requisitioning, purchasing, maintaining and issuing automotive, heavy equipment, electrical, construction, or maintenance equipment, materials, and supplies, and/or the receiving, inventorying, storing and distributing of various office equipment, records and files. On appeal, the appellant clarifies that he worked with one employee of the Forms Management Office to ensure that pre-

4 4 printed forms were ordered, printed, stocked, shipped and received on time. It is noted that qualifying experience involves work in a warehouse or stockroom, and forms management does not meet this criteria. As a Senior Stock Clerk, the appellant states that he received orders, checked purchase orders, verified receipt of delivery, and sent orders to departments, and maintained an inventory of forms. Again, the appellant was working with forms, which, by themselves, are not various office equipment, records and files. That is, the stocking and inventorying of forms is not at the level and scope of the required experience. As a Principal Stock Clerk, the appellant indicated that he coordinated the distribution of forms, he coordinated the correct stock placement of laboratory supplies in the warehouse, and he monitored and maintained an inventory of forms shipped from the warehouse, as well as developed and implemented an inventory control method. Again, the appellant s stock work was with forms, not automotive, heavy equipment, electrical, construction, or maintenance equipment, materials, and supplies or various office equipment, records and files. Even if this experience were to be accepted, it is only for two years, eight months. The appellant received credit for the first two positions listed on his application, which would have included the requirement of one year of supervisory experience. The appellant lacks four years, eleven months of applicable nonsupervisory experience. It is noted for the record that the experience requirement for this title does not, per se, indicate that professional experience is required, only that comprehensive warehouse or stockroom work is needed. As such, the experience requirement for this title is not consistent with the classification of the title as a professional title. Also, the conjunctions and/or make the experience vague or illdefined. Accordingly, the experience requirement for this title should be reviewed for clarity and classification purposes. A thorough review of all material presented by an independent appeals examiner indicates that the decision of the Division of Selection Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the examination closing date is amply supported by the record and the appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support his burden of proof in this matter. ORDER Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied, and that the experience requirement for this title be reviewed.

5 5 This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.