Appeals from the Orders of the State Civil Service Commission in the case of Anthony M. Carr v. Woodville State Hospital, Department of Public Welfare, Appeal No. 3348 and in the case of Anthony M. Carr v. Woodville State Hospital, Department of Public Welfare, Appeal No. 3535.
Robert L. Potter, Titus, Marcus & Shapira, for petitioner.
Marlene Jackson, Deputy Attorney General, with her Barbara G. Raup, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
Anthony M. Carr (Petitioner) consolidates his appeals from two separate orders of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission). The first order sustains the action of the Woodville State Hospital (Employer) reassigning Petitioner from his position as Labor Relations Coordinator, to a position consistent with his classification as a Management Analyst II, regular status. Petitioner worked for his Employer in the classification of Management Analyst II since 1970. In 1971, however, Petitioner began performing labor relations functions in addition to Management Analyst duties. Eventually, most of Petitioner's time became devoted to labor relations work, so that in effect, Petitioner worked as a Labor Relations Coordinator but remained classified as a Management Analyst II.*fn1 This
continued until October 1, 1980, when Petitioner was informed by his supervisors that he would no longer have any responsibility for labor relations, but would be assigned work in keeping with his classification as a Management Analyst II. Petitioner appealed this action alleging that this was not a reassignment but rather a discriminatory demotion based on non-merit factors in violation of Section 905.1 of the Civil Service Act (Act).*fn2 The Commission dismissed Petitioner's appeal and found that Petitioner's reassignment was proper and was not discriminatory.
The second Commission order involved in this consolidated appeal denied Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing. Petitioner sought this hearing when the Employer failed to appoint him to a newly created vacant position classified as Personnel Analyst II. This new job was in effect a labor relations specialty position requiring the performance of substantially the same duties Petitioner allegedly performed before while acting as Labor Relations Coordinator. Petitioner alleges generally that such action on the part of the Employer was discriminatory. The Commission denied Petitioner's request for a hearing, finding specifically that he failed to set forth specific acts of discrimination although he had been requested to do so on the preliminary inquiry form.
Petitioner raises many issues for our disposition and we will address them seriatim.
Initially, Petitioner contends that his Employer wrongfully failed to classify him in accordance with the duties he performed in his job as a Labor Relations
Coordinator. He further argues that because he performed the out-of-classification labor relations function for so many years, he should now be deemed to have that status. We, however, are unable to answer these questions presented by Petitioner regarding his classification since they are not properly before us. Jurisdiction over classification issues lies with the Executive Board. Gorton v. State Civil Service Commission, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 319, 385 A.2d 1026 (1978). In the instant case the Commission refrained from discussing these classification issues in its adjudication. The Commission acted properly by not deciding any issues regarding the ...