Final Non-Precedential Decision Adopted: May 14, 2003
By: Howard Schwartz, DPA Chief Counsel
DECISION
This matter was heard before Linda A. Mayhew, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) at 9:00 a.m. on February 26, 2003, and May 5, 2003, at Sacramento, California.
Appellant was present and was represented by Douglas Moffett, Employment Relations Specialist, Association of California State Supervisors (ACSS).
Pat Lujan, Staff Services Manager II, and Dan Tokunaga, Staff Personnel Program Analyst, represented the Employment Development Department (EDD).
Evidence having been received and duly considered, the ALJ makes the following findings of fact and Proposed Decision.
I - JURISDICTION
On April 14, 2002, ACSS filed an out-of-class grievance with EDD on appellant’s behalf. The grievance was denied by EDD on September 18, 2002. Appellant appealed the denial to DPA on September 26, 2002. On November 7, 2002, appellant requested a hearing. The appeal complies with the procedural requirements of Government Code section 19818.16.
II - CAUSE FOR OUT OF CLASS
Appellant claimed that she worked out of class from May 1997 through April 2002 as an Associate Printing Plant Superintendent (APPS).
As relief from working out of class, appellant initially requested that her current position be reclassified as an APPS; that she be appointed to the APPS position; and, that she be granted out-of-class pay at the APPS level from April 2001 to April 2002.
Pursuant to Government Code section 19818.16, appellant is only entitled to reimbursement for out-of-class work for the 12-month period immediately preceding her filing of the grievance in April 2002. The pay range for the OSM I for the relevant period was $3,537 to $4,299 per month. The pay range for the APPS for the relevant period was $3,975 to $4,794 per month.
III - SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS
Under direction, the OSM I, through subordinate supervisors, is responsible for the overall planning, directing, and coordination of varied and extensive clerical activities involving direction of as few as 30 or as many as 150 employees depending on the variety and complexity of the work performed. The OSM I typically plans, organizes, assigns, and reviews the work of varied and extensive processing and service units engaged in clerical and related office activities. Through subordinate supervisors, the OSM I approves and reviews work procedures and makes decisions on the more difficult operating and personnel problems; supervises the planning and flow of office work between units and to various subdivisions of the agency; reviews, evaluates, and recommends changes of policies and operating procedures; prepares the budget for the units supervised; studies the need for office equipment and supplies, writes specifications, prepares estimates of amounts and costs of equipment and supplies; develops production standards; designs and revises office forms; assists in the selection of subordinate supervisors, trains them, evaluates their performance, and takes or recommends appropriate action; develops performance standards and prepares and revises procedure manuals and the instructions for their use; confers with superiors and coordinates efforts of the office with other State departments and the public; dictates correspondence; prepares reports, and may be responsible for general office and equipment maintenance.
The OSM I must have knowledge of office organization and management principles; knowledge of modern methods of performing various kinds of clerical work and measuring work production; knowledge of supplies; office materials; and knowledge of modern equipment and its effective application; and knowledge of principles of personnel management and effective supervision.
The OSM I must have the ability to read and write English at a level required for successful job performance; the ability to apply office organization techniques, management principles, and modern methods for performing and measuring various kinds of clerical work; the ability to plan, organize, direct, and review the work of a large clerical staff; the ability to rapidly learn specific laws, rules, and office policies and procedures and use good judgment in applying them in a variety of cases; the ability to design and standardize effective and economical office forms; the ability to prepare reports and dictate correspondence independently; the ability to analyze situations accurately and take effective action; and the ability to secure and maintain cooperative relationships with all persons contacted in the work.
The criteria for the APPS classification and allocation has been supplemented in recent years. The December 1988 California State Personnel Board (SPB) Specification limited the use of the APPS class the Office of State Printing (OSP). Under the direction of a Printing Plant Superintendent, the APPS assisted the OSP Printing Plant Superintendent, supervised a group of employees and was responsible for a designated work function within the bindery, composing room or pressroom; and/or was responsible for the bindery, composing room or pressroom function on a night or evening shift. Typical tasks included planning, organizing, and directing the work in a production area; answering questions and giving advice on the more difficult technical problems; making periodic inspections; maintaining production and quality standards; developing new and more effective cost savings methods of operation; ordering supplies and equipment; maintaining discipline; assisting in training programs; promoting and enforcing safety rules; evaluating performance of personnel and taking or recommending appropriate action; assuming the duties of the OSP Printing Plant Superintendent in his/her absence; keeping records and preparing reports; and maintaining an awareness of new trends and technology in the printing industry and how it applied to the OSP.
The APPS had to have knowledge of the methods, materials, tools and equipment used in a large printing plant production operation; knowledge of maintenance procedures required in the production operation; knowledge of safety practices; and knowledge of principles and techniques of effective supervision; and labor relations principles and policies.
The APPS had to have the ability to read and write English at a level required for successful job performance; the ability to plan and supervise the work of others; the ability to estimate time required to complete jobs; the ability to establish and maintain quality controls; the ability to analyze situations accurately and take effective action; and, the ability to administer labor management contracts; and keep records and prepare reports.
In August 2001, DPA issued temporary, revised allocation standards for the APPS class. These were intended to address severe compensation compaction that occurred between printing supervisors and their subordinates as a result of 1999 collective bargaining negotiations with the Printing Trades, State Bargaining Unit 14. These “exceptional allocation guidelines” supplemented the existing SPB specifications. These guidelines expanded the use of the APPS class to departments other than the OSP. They described the APPS as “A second-line supervisor in full charge of a multifaceted, large print shop that includes a combination of the more complex functions and specialized journey-level printing trades classifications.” A large print shop was defined as typically having a staff of approximately fifteen (15) or more, including specialized classes, or fewer staff if justified by the complexity of the functions. The typical level of specialized classes supervised by an APPS were defined as Webfed Offset Press Operator II or above; Sheetfed Offset Press Operator III or above; Graphics Designer II or above; Digital Composition Specialist II or above; and Digital Print Operator II. Complex equipment and complex functions included the use of specialty presses identified as webfed offset, sheetfed offset, digital print equipment, high speed duplication equipment and electronic prepress equipment. Digital composition achieved with multiple software programs and/or computer platforms also constituted complex equipment and functions.
The APPS exceptional allocation also considered the responsibility for chemical storage and removal or disposal and the portion of work which involved sensitive and confidential materials.
The August 31, 2001, exceptional allocations were to be applied prospectively on a case-by-case basis. The allocations specifically state that no appointments to the APPS class would be made effective prior to August 31, 2001.
Permanent new allocation guidelines were effective for the APPS class on August 30, 2002. These superceded the interim August 31, 2001 guidelines. The 2002 guidelines again supplement the SPB specification. If the APPS class is used outside the OSP, these guidelines require the incumbent to have 15 or more printing trades staff reporting directly and indirectly to them; do not allow more than one APPS allocation per department; require responsibility for printing, bindery/finishing, and digital print functions within the department; and require a ratio of printing trades staff to supervisor of not less than one to five. If there are less than 15 printing trades staff, the APPS class may be used if there are ten or more printing trades staff; the minimum average monthly production is 10 million impressions per month; and the press work done includes webfed or sheetfed production that justifies, at a minimum, staff allocation(s) to either Sheetfed Offset Press Operator III or Webfed Offset Press Operator II.
IV - STANDARD OF REVIEW
In determining whether or not appellant’s assigned work was performed at the higher classification of APPS, one must evaluate the kind and variety of duties performed and the relative amount of time spent performing the duties. An employee will be considered working in a higher classification when she is performing the full range of duties of the higher class on a regular and consistent basis (at least 50% of the time).
During the period April 2001 through April 2002, appellant reported to a Business Services Officer III. She managed EDD’s Document Design Unit. This unit was the “pre-press” area. It consisted of three subunits: word processing; graphic arts; and, composing. The Document Design Unit had final responsibility for handling, designing, and preparing layouts and camera copy/digital output which may be sent EDD’s Reproduction Unit for completion. EDD reproduced documents for its own use and for approximately four other State agencies. Appellant estimated the Document Design Unit provided the master layouts for 160,000 originals from 7600 work orders which resulted in 187,000 printed pages per year.
The Document Design Unit used various equipment including multiple specialized computer programs; Panther Plus image setters; Film/RC paper processors; a 430 process camera; a light table; paper cutter; and Itek Plate Developer. The Document Design Unit did not use offset presses as the press print work was done in the Reproduction Unit.
Appellant estimated she spent 65% of her time coordinating the daily activities of the Document Design Unit with the Reproduction Unit and various EDD customers. As part of this coordination she ensured the final product was completed in the most cost efficient and timely manner while complying with Department policies and procedures. She had final responsibility for the quality and timeliness of work in the Document Design Unit.
Appellant testified that she supervised 16 employees during the relevant period. These employees included four Design Composition Specialist I’s; six Design Composition II’s; one Graphic Designer I; two Graphic Designer II’s; one Graphic Designer III; and, two Word Processing Technicians. She estimated she spent 10% of her time interviewing and hiring staff; reviewing and discussing with subordinates the type and amount of training to be given to employees; ensuring that an adequate number of staff were trained for the various duties of the Unit; monitoring and enforcing employee discipline and health and safety practices; and, keeping records on attendance.
Appellant also had responsibility for monitoring the usage and procurement of supplies and purchases related to special projects; compiling production and daily activities records; preparing equipment maintenance contracts for pre-press equipment; and, assisting in the development of long range equipment planning. She was also responsible for hazardous waste removal and for yearly hazardous waste removal plans for the Design Composition Unit. Appellant also kept informed of developments and improvements in printing equipment and methods of production and design. She was required to have knowledge of various printing equipment and methods in order to assure efficient coordination with the Document Reproduction Unit.
V - POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
EDD contended that the appellant was performing duties generally consistent with those of an OSM I. It concluded appellant was not working out of class as an APPS because she was a first-line, not a second-line, supervisor; she was in charge of eight, not 15, employees in specialized classes; and, she managed only one unit within a multifaceted, large print shop.
DPA also determined that appellant was not working out-of-class as an APPS. It found that appellant did not meet 1988 SPB specification criteria because the specification confined use of the APPS class to the OSP and required the incumbent to report to a Printing Plant Superintendent. DPA found appellant did not meet the August 31, 2001, exceptional allocation guidelines because appellant was not a second-level supervisor. DPA also found that appellant did not meet the August 30, 2002, allocation criteria because the area that the appellant supervised did not produce the required 10 million or more impressions per month and she did not supervise any staff in either the Sheetfed Offset Press Operator III or Webfed Offset Press Operator II classifications.
Appellant argued she should not be strictly held to the 1988 SPB specifications for the APPS class because the specifications were outdated and did not recognize new technology and the increased printing demand and responsibilities in departments other than the OSP. She also contended that because the OSP had an APPS classification in its pre-press area, she should be given the same classification.
She also argued that the complexity of functions she supervised justified fewer than 15 employees in specialized classes under the exceptional allocation guidelines. She contended that she was a second-level supervisor because she had lead workers who performed the functions of first-line supervisors. She also pointed out that the OSM I class also required that she be a second-level supervisor because it also requires “subordinate supervisors.” Appellant did not oversee employees classed as supervisors during the relevant period.
Finally, she also asserted that because the EDD employee who managed the Reproduction Area and who performed “similar work” was promoted to an APPS, she should be promoted or found to have been working out of class.
* * * * *
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT THE ALJ MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF ISSUES:
Government Code section 19818.16 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 she has performed duties outside the scope of her present classification. If the employee can establish satisfactorily that she performed such duties, DPA has the responsibility for determining whether she is entitled to be reimbursed. 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, 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 the employee spent performing the duties, must be evaluated.
Appellant spent at least 65% of her time managing respondent’s Document Design Unit. She was responsible for ensuring the work in the Document Design Unit met both the customer’s specifications and production requirements for the Reproduction Unit. She primarily supervised printing trade classes consisting of Design Composition Specialists and Graphic Designers. She was responsible for ordering printing supplies and project materials, chemical removal, and pre-press equipment maintenance contracts and purchase recommendations. Her duties and responsibilities required her to have technical printing and reproduction knowledge. Such duties are atypical of the OSM I series which generally anticipate responsibility for varied and extensive clerical and related office activities, not the specialized printing production responsibilities and knowledge which was required of appellant.
However, appellant’s job duties do not meet the criteria of the APPS class. The 1988 APPS SPB specification must be used as the guide to determine if appellant worked out of class for the period of April 19, 2001 to August 31, 2001. These specifications required the APPS to work at the OSP and required the APPS to report to a Printing Plant Superintendent. During all relevant periods, appellant worked for EDD and reported to a Business Services Officer III. Appellant did not work out of class from April 19, 2001 to August 31, 2001.
The SPB specifications and the August 31, 2001, exceptional allocation guidelines must be used as the guide to determine if appellant worked out-of-class for the period of September 1, 2001 to April 19, 2002. Pursuant to this criteria, the APPS may be employed at a department other than OSP, but must be a second-line supervisor. Appellant did not oversee supervisors during the year prior to the filing of her grievance. Although some of the subordinate trade specialists she supervised may have functioned as lead workers, they did perform the functions of a first-line supervisor. They did not have the authority to discipline an employee, complete probation or performance appraisals, hire employees, or to formally grant sick leave or vacation time. Therefore, appellant did not meet the criteria for working out of class as an APPS from September 1, 2001 through April 19, 2002.
The August 30, 2002, allocation guidelines are not relevant because there was no evidence the criteria adopted in these guidelines were in any way applicable to the statutorily defined time period of April 19, 2001 through April 19, 2002.
Appellant presented no evidence regarding the duties performed by the Reproduction Unit APPS or the duties performed by the APPS in the Pre-Press area at OSP.
Therefore, appellant did not work out-of-class as an APPS during the relevant period.
* * * * *
WHEREFORE IT IS DETERMINED
that the appeal from Denial of Out-of-Class Claim effective for the period April 19, 2001, through April 19, 2002 is denied.
