The duties and responsibilities of the position control with respect its classification and allocation to a salary grade

To contact us Click HERE

The duties andresponsibilities of the position control with respect its classification andallocation to a salary grade
Matter of Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME,AFL-CIO v State of New York Unified Court System, 55 AD3d 1070

Following the reallocation of positions previously titled "HearingExaminer" to “Support Magistrates, JG-31” and the adoption of a new titlestandard, individual Support Magistrates and the labor union representing them[petitioners], commenced a proceeding seeking to rescind the allocation of thetitle to JG-31, and place the Support Magistrate title in a higher salary grade-- JG-33. The title change and level of compensation had been determined by theChief Administrative Judge.

Supreme Court concluded that the classification of the position and itsallocation to JG-31 had a rational basis, was not arbitrary and capricious anddismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’sdetermination.

In the course of the proceeding the Administrative Director of the UnifiedCourt System submitted an affidavit in support of the classification of theposition and the allocation of the title Support Magistrates to JG-31 in whichhe stated that the allocation of the Support Magistrate title to salary gradeJG-31 was based upon the Chief Administrative Judge's finding that duties,responsibilities and functions of Support Magistrates are comparable to thoseof Court Attorney-Referees. Court Attorney-Referees act as special referees ina number of courts, including Family Court, and are also allocated to gradeJG-31.

In addition, the Administrative Director said that “Court Attorney-Referees,when authorized by a Family Court judge and upon consent of the parties,perform the same quasi-judicial functions that Support Magistrates do and inthe same court both conduct trials, take evidence and issue orders, includingorders of protection.”

Conceding that the reasons underlying the determination, are "faciallylegal," the petitioners argued that the two titles are not comparablebecause a Support Magistrate is directly empowered by statute to decide certainissues while a Court Attorney-Referee has no original jurisdiction conferred bystatute and the Court Attorney-Referee must be appointed by a court to hear andreport or, with the consent of the parties, hear and determine, the issues.

The Appellate Division was not persuaded by the petitioners’ argument, rulingthat “the difference in the origin of authority to entertain issues does notcontradict [the Chief Administrative Judge’s] conclusion that the duties,responsibilities and functions of the two titles are similar.” In other words,it is the duties and responsibilities of the position that are controlling inclassifying the position and allocating it to a salary grade, not the source ofthe authority that the incumbent of the title exercises.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_08043.htm