print logo
Main Content Anchor

DPA Case Number 06-D-0054 - Denial of Out-Of-Class Claim

Final Non-Precedential Decision Adopted: December 6, 2006
By: David A. Gilb, Director



This case was heard on August 22 and November 6, 2006 in Sacramento, California.
Appellant, was present and represented himself. Patrick Gage, Chief of Labor Relations, represented the Department of Health Services (DHS) (respondent). The Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) (respondent) did not appear.
Appellant filed a grievance for out-of-class pay and for promotion to the classification of Business Services Officer I (BSO I) or Business Services Officer II (BSO II) with the DHS on February 17, 2006.1 DHS denied the grievance at the third level on April 29.
Appellant appealed DHS’ denial to DPA on May 7. DPA preliminarily denied the grievance on May 24. The Association of California State Supervisors (ACSS) filed an appeal of DPA’s denial on appellant’s behalf on June 5.
  • DPA has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the denial of appellant’s request for out-of-class pay. DPA has jurisdiction to award out-of-class pay for a period of one year prior to the filing of appellant’s grievance. (Gov. Code 19818.16.)2 DPA does not have jurisdiction to promote the appellant. (Snow v. The Public Employees’ Retirement System (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 484, 488-489.)


Appellant argued he worked out of his classification of Mailing Machine Supervisor I (MMS I) as either a BSO I or BSO II since September 2003. He alleged that at various times he managed two to three functions: the mass mail operation, a warehouse, and most recently the daily mail operation. He argued he performed the increased responsibilities and staff supervision commensurate with the BSO I or BSO II classifications. He maintained his duties and responsibilities most accurately fit those of a BSO II. He argued he worked out of class for at least 75% to 87% of the time.
DHS denied appellant worked out-of-class. It posited appellant supervised one function because mass mail, daily mail and management of the facility “storage area” were sub-elements that comprised DHS’ single mail processing operation. DHS also maintained that other duties or responsibilities performed by the appellant were consistent with his current classification.
DPA also denied appellant’s out-of-class claim. It also held that mass mail, daily mail, and overseeing the storage warehouse constituted one function. DPA also determined appellant’s duties and responsibilities generally fell within that of the MMS I classification.
The issues to be decided in this case are:
1. Did the appellant spend more than 50% of his time performing the full range of duties of the BSO I classification for the period February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006?
2. Did the appellant spend more than 50% of his time performing the full range of duties of the BSO II classification for the period February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006?


The appellant was classified as a MMS I during all relevant periods. At the time appellant filed his grievance, he was assigned to the Mail Operations Center (MOC) in the Training and Administrative Services Section of DHS’ Program Support Branch. He reported to a BSO I.
From April 1, 1990 to September 1, 2003, appellant supervised DHS’ mass mail operation. During that time, the mass mail operation was part of the “Reprographics and Mail Services Unit” within DHS’ Contracts and Business Services Section. The reprographics section did printing. The printed material was used in at least some of the mass mailings.
The Reprographics and Mail Services Unit was located in the Central Issuance and Distribution Center (CID). The CID was in a separate location from other DHS operations. The CID included a 3,806 square foot warehouse where the mass mail and reprographic operations kept supplies. The mass mail operation was responsible for processing “Any metering job exceeding 250 letters, 100 flats, or 10 boxes” or “Any job requiring mechanical or manual processing other than metering.” The mass mail operation mailed letters, reports, and Medi-Cal notices. The services provided by the mass mail operation were “beyond the daily correspondence or interoffice mail services provided by the DHS Mail Services Unit.” (Appellant Exhibit “D.”)
Prior to September 2003, DHS’ daily mail was handled in a “Mail Services Unit” (MSU). The MSU was in a different location than the mass mail operation. The MSU was responsible for receiving, sorting, and delivering DHS’ incoming and outgoing daily mail.
On or about September 1, 2003, DHS consolidated the mass mail and daily mail operations into the Mail Operations Center (MOC). The MOC was located in the facility occupied by the former Reprographics and Mail Services Unit. The appellant was assigned responsibility for supervising both the mass mail and the daily mail.
When the daily mail and mass mail operations were consolidated, respondent relied on the appellant’s experience and expertise and adopted many of his recommendations for reorganizing the daily mail service. Much of this work, however, falls outside of the period relevant to this claim. Respondent paid appellant as a BSO I (Supervisor) from June 21, 2004 to October 28, 2004 while the BSO I position was vacant.
During the relevant period of this claim, February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006, appellant performed the following duties and specific tasks:
1. He supervised either directly or indirectly an average of approximately 35 MOC employees including an Office Services Supervisor I (OSS I).
He directly supervised daily mail operations and tasks until August 1, 2005 when an OSS I was hired as the first-level supervisor for the daily mail. Appellant then became the second-level supervisor for the daily mail. This responsibility included oversight for the sorting and scanning of incoming mail, processing of outgoing daily mail, and management of 20 post office boxes. It also included responsibility for coordinating special pickups and deliveries to and from DHS’ Central Office and the Department of General Services as well as other special messenger requests. The daily mail function did not include delivery of incoming mail because this was done by respondent’s Distribution Center.
Appellant directly supervised the mass mail tasks and employees. Appellant coordinated not only MOC personnel but also worked with personnel outside the MOC such as medical staff and other customers to ensure appropriate completion of the work order. Appellant was responsible for scheduling, planning, and executing the mailing project. Executing such mass mailing projects could include some preparation of the material to be mailed such as bursting, folding, collating, etc; stuffing the material into envelopes and addressing and metering the envelopes. The envelopes were then forwarded to a contractor who sorted the envelopes by zip code and mailed them. Mass mailings were usually done on a quarterly basis, but ad hoc mailings were also completed.
As a second-level supervisor of the daily mail and a direct supervisor of mass mail personnel, appellant approved attendance reports, job status reports, made job assignments, and disciplined employees as required. He also participated on the interview panel for new hires. Neither the OSS I nor the appellant had independent authority to hire.
2. Appellant supervised the preparation of data for the “chargeback system” that captured the mailing costs for each DHS division and he ensured this information was provided to DHS’ accounting section.
3. Appellant monitored cost and production information and provided this information to personnel who developed the budget for the MOC. Based on the cost and production information he tracked, he also provided estimates for the budget.
4. He acted as a liaison with the United States Postal Service (USPS).
5. He anticipated and initiated purchase orders for mailing supplies and service orders for equipment. This included researching and soliciting vendors to bid on providing millions of envelopes for mass mailings and working with other vendors to obtain other mail supplies as required.
6. Appellant provided draft language and the scope of required work for four mail-related contracts including contracts for on-site maintenance of approximately 32 mail machines, the pre-sort vendor, preventative maintenance of the “Rapiscan scanner,” and a contract for the postage meters. He also applied his mail expertise and supplied recommendations to those responsible for actually procuring and finalizing these contracts.
7. He oversaw compliance with the above MOC contracts. This included on-site monitoring of contract technicians and quarterly meetings with some vendors. Appellant also tracked lost production time. He initially approved payment of invoices for these contract goods and services.
8. Appellant initiated proposals and recommendations for leasing and purchasing new equipment. He conducted studies and presented recommendations for purchase of new digital printers for the Reprographics Unit and for an Ink Jet printer.
9. He initiated Revolving Fund Requests for payment of Post Office Box fees, mailing permits, and postage in postage meters.
10. Appellant managed the warehouse where the supplies for the mail and reprographic operations were kept. He was responsible for knowing what supplies were in the warehouse and for ensuring the necessary supplies for mailing were available in the warehouse. Appellant also was responsible for ensuring the forklift was maintained.
11. Appellant participated on a security team and assisted in developing department security projects and procedures involving handscanning incoming mail, security measures for receiving packages, and building security.
12. Appellant trained staff on how to use the hand scanner.
13. Appellant issued building access key cards and monitored the payment for the building security system.
14. He was the first level of contact for building problems. He reported lighting, plumbing, and janitorial problems and set thermostats in the MOC facility.
Appellant estimated he spent 42% of his time performing daily mail duties; 38% of his time performing mass mail duties; 10% of his time performing building manager duties; and 10% of his time performing tasks relating to the warehouse. Of the 38% spent working on mass mail, appellant posited that 25% of this time constituted out-of-class work because it was time spent supervising 14 Mail Machine Operators (MMO), some of whom worked on “swing shift.”


A. Mailing Machine Series

The MMS I is the first level supervisor class in the State Personnel Board (SPB) “Mailing Machines Series Specification.” The SPB Mailing Machine Series Specification “describes four classifications which perform or supervise a variety of tasks related to the machine processing of large volumes of outgoing United States and other carrier mail.”
The incumbents in the Mailing Machine classifications must have knowledge of postal regulations and rates relating to a variety of types of mail. They either operate or supervise the operation of a variety of machines that register the proper postage and include meter mailing machines and scales or machines that perform other tasks and include decollators, bursters, letter inserters, folding machines, and typing machines. Incumbents in the class are required to calibrate the machines for different types and sizes of material and perform maintenance and minor repair on the machines. They are responsible for maintaining the proper order and sequence of material during processing and maintaining the stock of material needed in mail processing. Incumbents may occasionally operate a small forklift in moving supplies and processed mail. They maintain records of cost and production; check and regulate work flow; review the quality and quantity of production; and maintain discipline and enforce safety rules and regulations.
The Mailing Machine series classifications are “distinguished from other clerical classes because the incumbents are regularly required to operate machines in processing large volumes of outgoing United States and other carrier mail” and the incumbents are required to have in-depth knowledge of postal regulations and rates.

Mailing Machine Supervisor I

Under general supervision, an MMS I is responsible for supervising, planning, coordinating, and directing subordinate clerical staff in a large volume mailing operation unit in processing of outgoing United States and other carrier mail. The MMS I typically supervises from 5-15 subordinate clerical employees including at least three Mail Machine Operators.

Mailing Machine Supervisor II

The MMS II is the highest supervising level in the Mailing Machines series. Under general direction, the MMS II is responsible for supervising, planning, coordinating, training and directing the work in a large volume mailing operation containing several units or more than one shift in processing outgoing United States and other carrier mail. Incumbents typically supervise a large staff of subordinate clerical employees including at least three Mailing Machine Supervisors I.3

B. Business Service Officer Series

The BSO series specification describes the work performed by six professional classes used in a wide range of business service activities. It includes both specialist and supervisor positions. In determining the level of the position to which work should be assigned, the following factors are considered: the variety and complexity of the business service work performed; department size and geographic dispersement; level and type of supervision received; extent of authority to make commitments; extent of responsibility for decisions; consequence of errors; level and type of personal contacts required; and number, level and variety of staff supervised.

Business Service Officer I (Supervisor)

The BSO I is the first supervisory level in the BSO series. Under general supervision, the BSO I typically has full supervisory responsibility for approximately three to six lower level staff in a business service office which may include general clericals, Materials and Store Supervisors, Property Controllers, Mailing Machine Operators, and Stock Clerks.
The BSO I may either (1) supervise all business service functions in the smallest business service offices and may personally perform the most difficult and complex technical and analytical business service work; or (2) in larger offices, supervise one or more business service functions of average difficulty or two or more functions of least complexity as assistant to a higher level Business Service Officer and assist with the performance of more difficult and complex service work.

Business Service Officer II (Supervisor)

Under direction, the BSO II (Supervisor) either (1) supervises all of the business service functions of a small-to medium-sized business service office and personally performs the more difficult and complex technical and analytical work; or (2) in larger offices, supervises one or more business service functions of average difficulty, or assists with the performance of other difficult and complex work.
The BSO II typically supervises seven to twelve staff of which one or more are Business Service Assistant (Specialists) or Business Service Officer I (Specialists or Supervisors). The BSO II may also supervise general clericals, Materials and Stores Supervisors, Property Controllers, Mailing Machine Operators, and Stock Clerks.4


1. The appellant bears the burden of proof and the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. (Aguila v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826.)
2. Government Code section 19818.16 sets forth the legislative authority and guidelines for review and payment of out-of-class claims:
“. . .the department [DPA] shall have the authority to review employee claims for additional reimbursement for the performance of duties outside the scope of their present classification and to authorize additional reimbursement for those duties. The department shall award employee claims under this section for a period no greater than one year preceding the filing of a claim.”
3. California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 599.810 (DPA Rule) (a)(2) defines “out-of-class work as “more than 50 percent of the time, performing the full range of duties and responsibilities allocated to an existing class and not allocated to the class in which the person has a current, legal appointment.”
4. DPA Rule 599.810 (a) (3) defines a higher classification as “one with a salary range maximum that is any amount higher than the salary range maximum of the classification to which the employee is appointed.”
5. DPA Rule 599.810 (b) permits payment for out-of-class work if: (1) the excluded employee is performing duties of a higher classification; (2) if the duties performed by the excluded employee are not described in a training and development assignment or by the specification for the class to which the excluded employee is appointed; and (3) if the duties as a whole are fully consistent with the types of jobs described in the specification for the higher classification.


Respondent historically viewed the daily mail and the mass mail as two separate units. The operations were historically physically separate, were supervised by different personnel and had different accounting identifications. The daily mail unit was historically responsible for distributing mail that came into the department from various sources and for processing outgoing mail from various internal sources.
The mass mail was historically part of a Business Services Unit that included reprographics. The mass mail operation was charged with processing large volumes of similar materials that were mailed at one time. The material to be mailed came either from the Reprographics unit, or from other sources within DHS or from other agencies. Mass mail personnel operated machinery that folded, collated, or bursted material; inserted the material in the envelope, weighed the envelope and applied the appropriate postage. The final sorting of the mail and actual mailing was done by a contractor.
The mass mail operation differed from the daily mail operation because it periodically machine-processed large volumes of the same type of outgoing mail and it could participate in the final stages of preparing the information for mailing. The daily mail operation received already processed incoming mail and used equipment to scan it for security purposes. It handled a larger variety of outgoing mail in smaller quantities that originated from a much larger variety of DHS programs or areas. The daily mail employees did not require the same level of mailing expertise or knowledge of machine operation as those who worked in the mass mail section.
Although there were differences in how daily mail communications and mass mail communications were processed and there were differences in the level of processing required, the function of the two mail units was the same. Both were charged with ensuring the proper processing of communications to be sent or received through the United States postal service or through other carriers regardless of where the information to be communicated originated or the amount or type of processing it required. When respondent consolidated the daily mail operation with the mass mail operation in the MOC, mail processing became one function consisting of two units. The warehouse where the reproduction and mailing supplies were stored did not constitute a separate function or operation. It was ancillary to the mailing and reprographics operations.
Therefore, during the relevant period, appellant supervised one mailing function consisting of two mail units. Appellant also supervised a swing shift and he planned, coordinated, trained and directed approximately 35 clerical staff including one OSS I. He performed analytical duties including his researching of various contract vendors, recommendation and implementation of new safety policies and procedures, submission of drafts of scopes of work for contracts and his study and recommendations for the leasing and purchasing of new equipment.
This supervision of two units and the level of responsibility expected of the appellant was beyond that of a MMS I. His duties would align with those of an MMS II except he did not supervise at least three MMS I’s as required by the SPB specification. And, the MMS II classification does not include the level of analytical work the appellant performed on the various projects during the relevant period. Appellant routinely did more than supervise mailing machines and their operators.
Instead, appellant performed the full range of duties the BSO I. According to both appellant’s testimony and documentation and the testimony of his immediate supervisor, the appellant was responsible for the total operation of DHS’ mail service. Appellant, instead of the BSO I, was responsible for the security and day to day functioning of the building and he was responsible for providing expert information and recommendations for purchasing mail and printing equipment, contracts and mail problem solving procedures and policies. Although some of appellant’s supervising, purchasing, contracting, budget, and research duties overlap with those of an MMS I, appellant’s BSO I supervisor and other employees relied upon the appellant and allowed him to assume duties and responsibilities beyond that of a MMS I on a regular basis during the relevant period of this appeal. Appellant performed such out-of-class duties more than 50% of the time.
Appellant did not perform the full range of duties of the BSO II because his duties entailed strictly the mail service function which was in one location and he did not supervise a variety of personnel and services.

VII - Conclusion

Appellant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he performed the duties and responsibilities of a BSO I for more than 50% of the time between February 16, 2005 and February 16. 2006.
Appellant’s appeal of denial of out-of-class claim effective May 24, 2006 is granted for the period of February 16, 2005 to February 16, 2006. Payment for this period is subject to all existing applicable statutes, rules, and policies for payment of out-of-class compensation.
* * * * *


1. All dates are 2006 unless otherwise indicated.
2. All references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.
3. The Mailing Machines Series specification is in the record on pages 122 to 126 of Joint Exhibit I.
4. The Business Services Officer Series Specification is in the record on pages 127 to 133 of Joint Exhibit 1.
  Updated: 5/22/2012
One Column Page
Link Back to Top