Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOSEPH J. COLLINS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/23/78)

decided: August 23, 1978.

JOSEPH J. COLLINS, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission in case of Joseph J. Collins v. Department of Transportation, No. 2080.

COUNSEL

E. Robert Elicker, with him Ann E. Hebel, and Snelbaker, McCaleb & Elicker, for petitioner.

Frank A. Fisher, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert W. Cunliffe, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.

Author: Bowman

[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 293]

A decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) sustaining an action of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Department) furloughing Joseph J. Collins, Appellant, is the subject of this appeal.

Appellant was employed by the Department as a Management Analyst II assigned to the Central Office, with sixteen years of seniority. In June, 1976, the Department decided to terminate a program within the Bureau of Design necessitating the elimination of one Management Analyst II position in the Central Office.

Of the thirteen Management Analysts II within the Department's Central Office, Appellant was chosen for furlough based on a series of computations made by the Department's Personnel Office. That office first reviewed the annual performance rating for every Management Analyst II in the Central Office and assigned an evaluation score to each performance rating to determine the relative status of each Management Analyst II. Appellant was the only person to fall

[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 294]

    within the lowest quartile of relative rankings as determined by the Department's Personnel Office.

The scoring process which produced such a result was explained by the Department's Chief of Manpower Planning and Placement as follows:

The point value or the valuation is determined by giving points for every general performance factor on which the employee is rated.

For example, there are five adjectival ratings ranging from . . . unsatisfactory to excellent.

Unsatisfactory receives no points, and then for each gradation within the four remaining adjectival ratings, the points are determined by increasing values of two.

For example, the low gradation of fair is worth two points. The middle gradation of fair is four points and so on up to the maximum of 24 points for a high excellent rating.

Once this process was accomplished to determine each employee's evaluation factor, we divided the total number of points they received by the total number of factors upon which they were rated. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.