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.

MYRON PRONKO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/16/88)

decided: March 16, 1988.

MYRON PRONKO, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Civil Service Commission, in the case of Myron Pronko v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Revenue, No. 5811.

COUNSEL

Kathleen Carey Daley, for petitioner.

Anniken U. Horton, Assistant Counsel, with her, George T. Bell, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Doyle, Barry, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle. Judge Barry concurs in the result only.

Author: Doyle

[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 430]

This is an appeal by Myron Pronko (Appellant) from an order of the State Civil Service Commission (Commission) which sustained in part and dismissed in part Appellant's appeal of his furlough from his position as Revenue Audit Manager, regular status.

The Commission found that at the time of the furlough Appellant was employed by the Department of Revenue (Appointing Authority) in the position of Revenue Audit Manager in the Appointing Authority's head-quarters office (Harrisburg). His duties involved supervision of the Appointing Authority's central audit group which group was responsible primarily for liquid fuels and sales tax audits. Of the five major divisions in the Appointing Authority's Bureau of Audits, two were supervised prior to January 19, 1985 by employees in Appellant's classification. In approximately September, 1984, the Appointing Authority elected to reorganize its Bureau of Audits; said reorganization involved establishing seven regional offices. Each office would be responsible for all types of audits including those previously performed by employees supervised by Appellant. The reorganization was implemented in the period from January through June of 1985, and auditors who had worked under Appellant's supervision were moved out of the central audit group.

By letter dated May 28, 1985, Appellant was notified of his furlough effective at the close of business on June 28, 1985. By letter dated May 29, 1985, Mr. George Otto, a Revenue Audit Manager employed in the Appointing Authority's Harrisburg district office, was notified of his reassignment to a position at the headquarters office (Appellant's worksite) effective May 31, 1985. This individual was included in Appellant's furlough unit for purposes of performing the review of employees to be furloughed pursuant to Section 802 of

[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 431]

    the Civil Service Act,*fn1 (Act) and the accompanying regulation.*fn2 Appellant's furlough unit as defined by the Appointing Authority, thus consisted of three persons: Appellant, Mr. Beradone, and Mr. Otto. On the basis of the furlough calculations, determined by performance evaluation reports (PERs) and seniority, Appellant ranked third, Otto second, and Beradone first; the Appointing Authority, nonetheless, furloughed Beradone and Appellant while retaining Otto. Both furloughees appealed separately to the Commission. By separate order and adjudication, the Commission sustained Beradone's appeal and directed that the Appointing Authority reinstate him to his position as Revenue Audit Manager. The Commission, in the Beradone adjudication, specifically determined that inclusion of Otto in the furlough unit was improper and found that the Appointing Authority sought to "pick and choose" whom it would furlough.*fn3

Appellant appealed his furlough to the Commission under both Section 951(a)*fn4 of the Act (providing for an appeal as of right by a regular status employee from, inter alia, a furlough) and Section 951(b)*fn5 (providing for an appeal as of right by any person who believes he has been discriminated against in violation of the Act). The

[ 114 Pa. Commw. Page 432]

Commission dismissed the appeal generally but sustained the appeal insofar as backpay was awarded for the period between Appellant's effective date of furlough, June 28, 1985, and August ...


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.