Appellant failed to establish a violation of any career service rule, ordinance or charter provision where he was promoted at salary step one with 20% increase in pay, after agency’s withdrawal of offer to pay at step seven. In re Mallard, CSA 129-05, 3 (2/23/06) (decided under former 9-61).
Involuntary demotion with attendant loss of pay is defined as a demotion initiated through discipline, disqualification, or in lieu of separation during probation. In re Sullivan, CSA 44-08 (Order 6/13/08).
Reclassification is not an involuntary demotion with attendant loss of pay under this section. In re Sullivan, CSA 44-08 (Order 6/13/08).
Demotion in lieu of layoff is involuntary, therefore pay is governed by the rule on pay for involuntary demotion. In re Rodriguez, CSA 106-04, 4-5 (3/2/05).
The phrase “at the top of the growth sector in a pay range” refers to the pay range for the position to which the employee is demoted, not the position from which the employee was demoted. In re Rodriguez, CSA 106-04, 6-7 (3/2/05) (decided under former 9-63).
Sheriff’s Dept. Director’s does not derive authority under this rule to appoint a major to acting division chief, as CSR 9 does not apply to employees in the Undersheriff pay schedule. In re Anderson, et al., CSA 61-10, 63-10, 66-10 & 67-10, 7 (12/22/10).
Rule does not contemplate additional pay for working less than 30 days in a position out of appellant’s job classification. In re Van Dyck, CSA 143-05, 2 (Order 2/16/06) (decided under former 7-80).
This rule grants the career service board authority, in its sole discretion, to make a market adjustment in a pay practice or to create a temporary pay practice if certain conditions are met. In re Anderson, et al., CSA 78-08 to 124-08, 2 (Order 1/7/09).
Appeal of denial of pay adjustment based on hire of new employees at higher rate does not state a claim under § D of this rule, which grants CSB sole discretion to make market adjustments in pay practices. In re Anderson, et al., CSA 78-08 to 124-08, 2-3 (Order 1/7/09).
Appeal of denial of pay adjustment based on hire of new employees at higher rate does not state a claim under § E of this rule, which grants CSA personnel director sole discretion to adjust pay within same pay grade for current employees in order to eliminate pay inequity. In re Anderson et al., CSA 78-08 to 124-08, 3 (Order 1/7/09).
Where appellant filed no grievance, jurisdiction over appeal of denial of equipment pay differential is absent. In re Chavez, CSA 09-06 (Order 3/6/06) (decided under former 9-92).
This rule authorizes an agency to assign stand-by duty only when there is a reasonable anticipation the employee will have to respond and perform work immediately. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 4 (1/18/18).
This provision is inapplicable to employee claiming agency could not assign stand-by duties where she was ineligible for stand-by pay. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 4 (1/18/18).
Since agency responded to between 300 and 600 emergency calls per year, it was reasonable in assessment that employee could be anticipated to work in the weeks she was assigned after-hours duty regardless whether she actually responded to an emergency. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 4 (1/18/18).
Agency was within its rights to assign after-hours duties to FLSA-exempt employee without stand-by or overtime compensation. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 4 (1/18/18).
Agency did not treat FLSA-exempt employee unfairly by assigning her several weeks per year of mandatory after-hours emergency response duties. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 4 (1/18/18).
Hearing Office has no jurisdiction to resolve a challenge to an FLSA-exempt status, or to order re-classification, as necessary to reverse agency action. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 3 (6/5/17).
CSR 9-56 requires a specific, fixed location, “the work site,” to which the agency can require its employees to report back, where they had been working during regular hours. In re Osborne et al, CSA 35-18…38-18, 5 (9/5/18).
CSR 5-23 and 9-70 and 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, CSB 13-17, 2 (1/18/18).
CSR 9-71 does not require that an FLSA-exempt employee required to work more than forty hours per week is entitled to stand-by or overtime pay. In re Bohner, CSB 13-17, 2-3 (1/18/18).
Payroll practice to pay salaried employees does not justify absences during a work schedule set by supervisor, or excuse failure to work the standard forty-hour work week set by the CSRs. In re Martinez, CSA 10-17, 5 (7/19/17).
Appellant’s disagreement with her work schedule is not relevant to the claimed rule violations, which were proven by her unauthorized absences from work and deviations from her scheduled shift. In re Martinez, CSA 10-17, 5 (7/19/17).
Rule 9 permits agencies to pay and schedule their employees in accordance with the standards adopted by the CSB. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 6 (6/5/17).
Under Rule 9, the presumptive forty-hour work week is not the maximum an exempt employee may be required to work. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 6-7 (6/5/17), citing Minnick v. City and Cty. of Denver, 784 P.2d 810 (Colo. App. 1989) (holding an intent to establish a basis for liability must be clearly expressed in an ordinance).
The CSRs empower the mayor and appointing authorities to deviate from the forty-hour work week in an emergency or when efficiency dictates a different schedule. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 6 (6/5/17), citing CSR 9-72 through 9-80.