Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Determining if assigned duties constitute out-of-title work

Determining if assigned duties constitute out-of-title work
CSEA v Angello, App. Div., Third Dept.,

CSEA, representing 128 employees of the Central New York Developmental Disabilities Service Organization serving as Developmental Aide - In Residence [DA-IR9] filed a grievance claiming that such employees were routinely assigned supervisory duties of a SG-12 Developmental Assistant I - In Residence [DAI-IR12] and that such tasks constituted out-of-title work under the relevant Taylor Law contract.

The SG-12 duties allegedly assigned to the SG-9 workers: submit budget reports, purchase requests, maintenance logs, time and attendance sheets, vehicle reports, formulate menus, supervise client recreational activities, provide for subordinate staff training and make decisions concerning the operation of the sleepover residences on a regular basis.

The grievance was denied at all steps of the contract grievance procedure and CSEA appealed. A state supreme court dismissed CSEA?s petition after finding that the duties complained of were not beyond the contemplation of the job description for DA-IR9 nor excessively complex or difficult, that CSEA failed to show that class members spent a significant amount of time at the objectionable tasks. Supreme Court concluded that there was a rational basis for denial of the grievance.

Pointing out that although [o]ut-of-title work, other than on an emergency basis, is prohibited by Section 61.2 of the Civil Service Law, the performance of duties by a grievant which are substantially similar to those set forth in that person?s job description does not constitute out-of-title work, nor does some overlap of the duties of a DA-IR9 employee and the higher grade DAI-IR12 employee.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court?s dismissal of CSEA?s petition. Its rationale: CSEA?s main argument that DA-IR9s were routinely assigned supervisory duties of DA1-IR12s is tempered by CSEA?s concession that ?... DA-IR9s do not supervise other employees and the tasks of preparing and submitting budget reports, purchase requests and other documents performed by DA-IR9s in their residential settings ... were rationally determined not to be out-of-title work or [constituted a] permissive overlap of the duties of DAI-IR12s who supervise those residences.?
NYPPL

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 08, 2010 (boomark / email).