Employee who was promoted at salary step one after the withdrawal of an offer of pay at step seven suffered no harm under any career service rule, ordinance or charter provision, and therefore appeal based on withdrawal of the initial offer was dismissed. In re Mallard, CSA 129-05, 3 (2/23/06) (decided under former §9-61).
Promoted employee suffered no harm by withdrawal of original offer of pay at step seven when he readily accepted a second offer at step one, which represented a 20% increase in pay, so there was no need for agency to entice him further. In re Mallard, CSA 129-05, 3 (2/23/06).
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).
Demotion in lieu of lay-off is involuntary, and therefore pay upon demotion shall be set in accordance with rule governing involuntary demotion. In re Rodriguez, CSA 106-04, 4-5 (3/2/05) (decided under former §9-63).
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 (3/2/05) (decided under former §9-63).
Sheriff’s Dept. Director’s claim to derive authority under this rule to appoint a major to acting division chief is without merit, 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 6 days worked 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 (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 (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 (Order 1/7/09).
Where appellant filed no grievance, jurisdiction to appeal denial of equipment pay differential is absent. In re Chavez, CSA 09-06 (Order 3/6/06) (decided under former §9-92).
Payroll practice to pay salaried employees for 40 hours does not justify absences during a work schedule set by supervisor, or excuse failure to work a standard 40-hour work week. 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).
OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202
For general employee relations questions contact:
For ADA questions contact:
To leave a message, please call: