Rule 5: Appointments and Status

 An employee in a limited position who successfully completes probation attains Career Service status. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 2 (11/30/06); 5-35 B. 

Agency’s decision not to extend a limited position appointment beyond its stated end date was not a layoff, and therefore was not in violation of Rule 5-35 of the Career Service Rules. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 3 (11/30/06).

A career status employee whose position was extended annually until she chose demotion was not entitled to continuing layoff protection under 5-35 B, to which she would have been entitled, had she not demoted. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 2 (11/30/06).

Requirement to work more than forty hours per week does not violate definition of “full time position” as a forty-hour work week. In re Bohner(PDF, 833KB), CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18), citing CSR 5-23.

FLSA-exempt employees are constantly called on to work additional time without additional compensation, as that is the nature of their work. In re Bohner(PDF, 833KB), CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18).

FLSA-exempt employees work until their tasks are completed. In re Bohner(PDF, 833KB), CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18).

It is not abusive of FLSA that certain FLSA-exempt employees are required to respond to emergencies. In re Bohner(PDF, 833KB), CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18).

CSR 5-23 and 9-70 through 71 do not entitle FLSA-exempt employee to stand-by pay for regular rotation of after-hours duties for several one-week periods during the year. In re Bohner(PDF, 833KB), CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18).

Where employee was reclassified during probation, then accepted another position higher than the job she was hired into but lower than her reclassified position, factual issue exists whether appellant attained career service status at the time of her termination. In re Brooks(PDF, 137KB), CSB 91-07, 2 (Order 4/9/08). 

Hearing officer must determine factual dispute regarding jurisdiction before the CSB will intervene in an interlocutory jurisdiction appeal. In re Brooks(PDF, 137KB), CSB 91-07, 2 (Order 4/9/08). 

An employee in a limited position who successfully completes probation attains Career Service status. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 2 (11/30/06); CSR 5-42 B. 

Since an on-call employee does not hold career status under § 5-42, the only issues raised by the appeal are the discrimination claims. In re Wehmhoefer, CSA 02-08, 1 (Order 2/14/08); In re Escalera(PDF, 35KB), CSA 54-06 (Order 8/14/06); 5-42 D. 

Agency’s decision not to extend a limited position appointment beyond its stated end date was not a layoff, and therefore was not in violation of Rule 14 of the Career Service Rules. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 3 (11/30/06).

A career status employee who chose demotion to a limited position in July, 2005, was not entitled to § 5-62 5)’s layoff protection, which only protects employees appointed after January 16, 2004. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 2 (11/30/06).

An on-call employee does not have career status. In re Escalera(PDF, 35KB), CSA 54-06 (Order 8/14/06); CSR 5-42 D. 

Probationary employee cannot attain career status without having completed mandatory training programs even when the agency failed to request an extension of probation and erroneously certified the employee successfully completed probation. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08). 

Probationary employee’s failure to complete mandatory training automatically extends probation until he completes training. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3-4 (10/16/08). 

Hearing officer’s reliance on § 5-42 B.2. in holding that completion of all mandatory training is not a necessary prerequisite for passing probation is erroneous. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 4 (10/16/08). 

The intent of this rule was to establish how minimum periods of employment probation and promotional probation are calculated when an employee on employment probationary status is promoted. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 4 (10/16/08). 

The number of successfully completed months of service in both pre and post-promotional positions may be combined to satisfy the six-month probation requirement. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 4-5 (10/16/08). 

Interpretation of this rule as combining successfully-completed months of service in both pre and post-promotional positions harmonizes with other rule provisions that require successful completion of both the minimum period of employment and mandatory training before an employee attains career status. In re Sample, CSB 72-07 (10/16/08), citing CSRs 5-42 B.1.a; 6-20 C; 5-53 C; and 5-52 B.

An employee may be deemed to have passed employment probation by default, but only if he successfully completed both the minimum probationary period and the mandatory training. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08), citing CSR 5-53 C. 

The purpose of probation is to allow an agency a work-test period after hire for close observation of a new employee to determine if his performance meets required standards, and permit the employee to obtain assistance to adjust to new duties. In re Sample(PDF, 634KB), CSA 72-07, 6 (6/12/08), reversed on other grounds In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).

The rules provide that the CSA, each agency, and the employee all share responsibility for a probationary employee’s completion of training requirements. In re Sample(PDF, 634KB), CSA 72-07, 7 (6/12/08), reversed on other grounds In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).

Using hire date to determine mandatory training requirements for probationary employees rather than a subsequent effective date of a rule on training would require agencies to apply two different training requirements to them, an impractical result that could not have been intended by the CSB. In re Sample(PDF, 634KB), CSA 72-07, 7-8 (6/12/08), reversed on other grounds In re Sample, CSB 72-07 (10/16/08).

Hearing officer erroneously interpreted rules in concluding that a probationary employee can attain career status by default without having completed mandatory training programs if the agency fails to timely request an extension of probation and/or erroneously certifies that the employee successfully completed probation. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).

A probationary employee’s failure to complete mandatory training automatically extends probation until he completes training. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3-4 (10/16/08). 

An employee can be deemed to have passed employment probation by default, but only if he has successfully completed both the minimum probationary period and the mandatory training. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08). 

The responsibility to ensure that a probationary employee completes the training mandatory under  6-20 A. is shared equally among the employee, the agency and CSA. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).

Prior to the end of the probationary period, the agency is required to notify the employee and CSA in writing whether or not the employee has passed probation. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08). 

Hearing officer erroneously interpreted rules in concluding that a probationary employee can attain career status by default without completing mandatory training programs if the agency fails to timely request an extension of probation and/or erroneously certifies that the employee successfully completed probation. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).

A career status employee was not entitled to layoff protection when she took a demotion to a limited position in 2005. Under CSR 5-35 B, limited employees appointed after 1/16/04 are not entitled to layoff protection. In re Martillaro(PDF, 148KB), CSA 42-06, 2 (11/30/06). 

Career service employees are entitled to lay-off protection. In re Foley, (PDF, 921KB)CSA 19-06, 7 (11/10/06). 

A career status employee is entitled to layoff protection in accordance with Rule 5-35. In re Romberger(PDF, 5MB), CSA 89-04, 5 (3/2/05).

While on employment probationary status, employees are subject to termination or demotion at any time, have limited appeal rights and are subject to other restrictions. In re Sample, CSB 72-07, 3 (10/16/08).