Final Non-Precedential Decision Adopted: February 7, 2002
By: Howard L. Schwartz, DPA Chief Counsel
DECISION
This matter was heard by Mary C. Campisi, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) at 9:00 a.m. on January 29, 2002, at Sacramento, California.
Appellant and her representative, Paul D. Huggins, Labor Relations Representative, Association of California State Supervisors (ACSS), appeared telephonically.
Denise M. Sims, Manager, Classifications & Personnel Services Division, represented the Department of the Youth Authority (CYA), respondent. Susan W. Tune, Personnel Program Consultant, Classification and Compensation Division represented DPA.
Evidence having been received and duly considered, the ALJ makes the following findings of fact and Proposed Decision.
I - JURISDICTION
On September 12, 2000, appellant filed an out-of-class grievance with CYA. On December 22, 2000, it was finally denied by CYA at the third level. On March 12, 2001, appellant appealed the Level 3 Denial to DPA. On October 26, 2001, DPA issued a preliminary determination denying the claim. On November 14, 2001, appellant appealed the preliminary determination through her union representative and requested an evidentiary hearing.
Government Code sections 19815.4(e) and 19818.16 provide for DPA to review and consider a denial of an out-of-class grievance from an excluded employee so long as the employee files a timely appeal. The time for filing an appeal is within thirty (30) calendar days after service of the preliminary determination. This appeal is timely. Therefore, it is concluded that the matter is properly before DPA for review.
II - CAUSE FOR OUT-OF-CLASS GRIEVANCE
Appellant seeks reimbursement for out-of-class work as a Parole Agent III, (PA III) YA for the one year preceding the filing of her claim on September 12, 2000. Appellant also seeks relief from duties associated with clerking for the Youth Offenders Parole Board (Board) hearings.
III - PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant works as an OSS II, GEN in Program Services at Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (HGS YCF) at Chino, California. Her duties include supervising and managing clerical staff including office technicians and information services technicians. She also works two to three days a week providing support services to the Board.
Clerking the Board involves the following responsibilities:
* Ensuring the Board hearings are ready to begin upon arrival of the Hearing Officers;
* Checking the tape recorder to ensure it is in good operating condition;
* Operating the recorder;
* Making the necessary introductions for the record at the beginning of each hearing;
* Prior to arrival of the Hearing Officers, verifying that the field files placed in the bin by the Board technicians are the correct files needed to hear the agenda;
* Ensuring that all materials needed to complete the hearing are properly organized and present (e.g. arch boards, references, nameplates, etc.);
* Supervising the clerical staff responsible for tracking cases that require Board appearance;
* Supervising staff who are directly responsible for scheduling Board cases within the established timeframes;
* Preparing and posting the Board Agendas;
* Collecting and placing the appropriate documents on the YOPB arch boards;
* Loading the Board bin with the appropriate files, documents, tapes and supplies;
* Providing immediate review of the work being performed by subordinate (clerical) employees and the opportunity to rectify operational concerns;
* Listening to Board hearings and documenting the hearings by completing the respective Board orders (i.e. completing the Board Order form, marking the appropriate boxes and writing out the verbal Board order given by the Board Member or Representative at the end of each hearing); and
* In some instances, enlightening the Board as to specific institutional or departmental policies (i.e. why cases are specifically scheduled on Referee, Panel or Full Board Agendas or the timeliness of legal notes).
Appellant estimates that she clerks an average of eight out of eleven Boards a month.
She claims that these duties are consistent with the duties of a PA III, YA, not an OSS II, GEN. Therefore, she is being required to work out of class.
IV - SPECIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES
OSS II, GEN is part of a consolidated series specification, which describes three levels of classes that train, plan, organize and direct a staff of clerical employees who perform a variety of general office and related clerical support tasks, including functions such as typing, filing, accounting, cashiering and statistics. According to the specification, the level of difficulty, variety and complexity of assigned duties and the independence of action and decision are differentiating factors between classes. Other differentiating factors included the degree of supervision received and exercised, sensitivity of public contact and the consequence of error.
OSS II, GEN is the first full-supervisory level. Incumbents plan, organize and direct the work of medium-sized groups engaged in difficult clerical work. The scope of duties supervised include reception and secretarial support; typing and word processing support; mail and document receiving and distribution; filing and records management; document preparation and review; composition of letters, procedure manuals and reports; gathering and giving information; statistical, financial and other record keeping; cashiering; and ordering and maintaining supplies and equipment.
Incumbents in the class of PA III, YA either have charge of a field parole unit in the Parole and Community Services Division at CYA or a classification and casework section of a youth correctional facility, or they supervise a major specialized phase of the parole program. They may also relieve a high level administrator of details related to the operation of a parole and community service program within an assigned area.
Typical tasks for a PA III, YA, as set forth in the specification, include supervising parole agents; securing and training staff; assigning and reviewing work; making field inspections; evaluating performance; advising and cooperating with county probation officers in probation and parole work; developing community resources and securing the cooperation of social, law enforcement, recreational, religious, education and other agencies concerned with ward and parolee rehabilitation; investigating and studying case histories of wards and parolees and analyzing factors related to specific cases of delinquency; collecting and analyzing data; coordinating the parole or classification and casework programs with other phases of the rehabilitation program; representing his/her unit at Youth Authority Board hearings; planning and assisting in placement and training of wards; assisting in the development of rules and regulations governing parole operations; cooperating with judges and probation officials on matters concerning parolees; representing CYA at conferences and before groups; developing local facilities and community resources; serving as office manager for the office; planning, organizing and assigning work; maintaining discipline and making decisions on difficult problems in connection with the supervision of the clerical staff assigned to the office; maintaining State auto records regarding use; acting as liaison between the facility and the Division of Parole and between the facility and the Board; acting as liaison between facility staff and Division of Institutions; providing functional supervision to Parole Agents; providing line supervision to staff in a large classification and casework section; relieving higher level staff in major areas of Parole and Community services programs; investigating operations and procedures; conducting personnel investigations; coordinating business service functions; and preparing reports. (The highlighted areas are duties appellant claimed she was performing.)
Taken together, the specification for PA III, YA demonstrates incumbents who work at a youth correctional facility such as HGS YCF are required to perform a broad range of duties associated with managing entire parole units. The specification for OSS II, GEN demonstrates that incumbents working at a YCF manage and supervise clerical staff and provide support for the broader programs relating to the incarceration and rehabilitation of wards.
V - STANDARD OF REVIEW
In determining whether or not appellant’s Board Clerk duties constitute out-of-class work as a PA III, YA, one must evaluate the kind and variety of duties performed and the relative amount of time spent performing those duties. An employee will be considered as working in a higher classification only if the employee is determined to be performing the “full range of duties” of the higher class on a regular and consistent basis (at least 50% of the time.)
VI - PRIOR FINDINGS OF BOTH CYA AND DPA
In this case at all three levels of response at CYA, CYA determined that appellant’s duties as Board Clerk were consistent with her duties as an OSS II-GEN. The first-level response specifically addressed appellant’s claim that the Board Clerk duties were consistent with the responsibilities of a PA III-YA in that they required her to “represent” her unit at Board hearings. The response noted that appellant misread the intent of the language in the PA III specifications, which was to “represent his/her unit at Youth Authority Board hearings.” The response clarified that the “representation” referred to the PA III’s representation of cases from the entire parole unit, which he/she manages, not to general representation of a clerical unit within the facility. (Appellant does not represent wards.) CYA also noted in the first-level response that while PA III’s may be directed to clerk full board meetings, that responsibility is intended to protect against remediation of more complicated and serious offense cases during presentation to the full Board.
In the second-level response, which also denied the claim, the Deputy Superintendent, pointed out that the fact that the specific task of “clerking the Board” is not listed in the OSS specification, and is not dispositive of whether it is consistent with the specific duties of a position in that classification. Specifications merely provide overviews of the requirements and expectation for the positions within a class. The Deputy Superintendent also noted that clerking the Board is not a casework task (which would be performed by the PA III, YA) but a recording function consistent with appellant’s job duties as an OSS II.
The Director of CYA, prepared the third-level response. He similarly concluded that appellant was not working out of class in clerking the Board for parole hearings. He stated, “The fact that clerking the board is not specifically listed in the Job Specification for the OSS series does not preclude the grievant to perform this task.... It is not unreasonable for the grievant to clerk Board, nor is it an out-of-class assignment.”
After further analysis, DPA determined that appellant was not performing the full range of duties of a PA III, YA. The DPA analysis stated, “The Board Clerk functions, as described in the documentation provided in the grievance file, are duties consistent with responsibilities performed by a variety of clerical support classifications, including the OSS II (General).” The DPA analysis also concluded that, “... boards typically use clerical positions to perform clerk functions.”
VII - APPELLANT’S RESPONSE
Appellant testified that clerking the Board equated with the following duties of a PA III, YA.
* Coordinating the parole or classification and casework programs with other phases of the rehabilitation program;
* Representing his/her unit at Youth Authority board hearings;
* Serving as office manager for the office;
* Planning, organizing and assigning work;
* Maintaining discipline; and
* Making decisions on difficult problems in connection with the supervision of clerical staff assigned to the office.
Appellant also testified that performing clerking duties took time away from her other supervisory duties, such as overseeing the clerical staff and evaluating work performance.
* * * * *
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT THE ALJ MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF ISSUES:
Government Code section 19818.18 provides an employee who works out-of-class with the right to request reimbursement by filing an appeal with DPA. Reimbursement may be granted only if the employee proves that he has performed duties outside the scope of his present classification. If the employee can establish satisfactorily that he performed such duties, DPA has the responsibility for determining whether he is entitled to be reimbursed, for duties performed pursuant to Government Code section 19818.18. In accordance with the provisions of Section 19818.16(a) retroactive payment of an out-of-class claim shall be awarded for a period no greater than one year preceding the filing of the claim.
In seeking reimbursement, an appellant has the burden of proof and the burden of going forward in the appeal hearing. In determining whether or not the assigned work is in a higher classification, the kind and variety of duties performed and the relative amount of time, which the employee spent in performing the duties, must be evaluated.
Appellant failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that she spent over 50% of her time performing duties above the class of OSS II, GEN. She failed to prove that clerk duties--including preparing tapes and files, tape recording proceedings and filling out forms-- were duties more reasonably associated with the high level position of PA III, YA than with clerical supervision. Her job specification clearly requires her to perform a variety of general office and related clerical support tasks.
Further, a PA III, YA may have some parallel duties to an OSS II, GEN, but the nature of the workload as well as the breadth of responsibility differ substantially. For example, both serve as supervisor/managers; plan, organize and assign work; maintain staff discipline; and make decisions regarding supervision. Those are standard supervisory tasks; and both positions are supervisory. However, the PA III, YA manages an entire parole unit (or more), plans, organizes and assigns ward cases and supervisors and manages not only clerical personnel but also professional staff. In contrast, the OSS II, GEN manages a clerical support unit and plans, organizes and assigns clerical work. Also for example, while both may coordinate work and represent their work units, a PA III, YA coordinates class and casework programs and other phases of rehabilitation programs for wards and represents the entire parole unit at hearings. In contrast, the OSS II, GEN coordinates clerical work and programs which support the parole units professional staff and represents only her clerical staff in providing support to the Board.
For the reasons set forth above, it is concluded that the appellant failed to prove that she performed out-of-class duties as a PA III, YA while serving as an OSS II, GEN with CYA.
* * * * *
WHEREFORE IT IS DETERMINED
that the claim OSS II-GEN, CYA, for out-of-class compensation as a PA III, YA for the period commencing September 12, 1999, and ending September 12, 2000, is denied.
