Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130625_0001741.PA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 12:39:26
Document Index: 430975243

Matched Legal Cases: ['§507', '§101', '§741', '§741', '§1102', '§501']

| Mansfield v. State Civil Service Commission (Department of Labor And Industry)
Mansfield v. State Civil Service Commission (Department of Labor And Industry)
Paul Mansfield, Petitionerv.State Civil Service Commission (Department of Labor and Industry), Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge, ANNE E. COVEY, Judge.
On July 15, 2011, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granted benefits to Mansfield. In doing so, the Board observed that it was a "very close case." Reproduced Record at 16a (R.R. __). Nevertheless, the Board concluded that Mansfield's "actions and demeanors, " which caused the Department to dismiss him at the end of his probationary employment, did not rise to the level of willful misconduct. Id.
On September 30, 2011, the Department of Labor and Industry again requested the Civil Service Commission to remove Mansfield's name from the eligibility lists for open positions including: clerk typist 2; intermittent intake interviewer; clerk 2; equal opportunity specialist 1; employment interviewer; and disability claims adjudicator trainee. The Department stated that its request was merit-related, explaining that Mansfield's "intolerable behaviors" during his probationary employment had led the Department to conclude that he was not suitable for the listed jobs. R.R. 430a-431a.
AND NOW, upon careful review of the Department of Labor and Industry's List Removal Request dated September 30, 2011, Respondent's response thereto, the oral arguments and other written submissions presented by the parties, the State Civil Service Commission hereby grants, as modified, the Department of Labor and Industry's List Removal Request. Inasmuch as the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found that Respondent's conduct was not the product of willful misconduct, although his removal from the Philadelphia Service Center work location was justified nonetheless, we decline to remove him from all lists certified to the entire appointing authority, as requested; but we also agree he should not return to work at the Philadelphia Service Center work location. Accordingly, we direct and order the removal of Paul Mansfield's name from any and all eligible lists certified to the Office of Unemployment Compensation Benefits, Philadelphia Service Center work location only, for the positions of Unemployment Compensation Claims Intermittent Intake Interviewer and Clerk 2 (Classification Codes 06590 and 00120), for a period of one year, as well as for the position of Equal Opportunity Specialist 1 (Classification Code 05221), for a period of three years, all removals retroactive to September 30, 2011. Respondent's name will not be removed from lists issued for other appointing authority work locations for which he has made himself available. Although Respondent has also asked the Commission to rescind our previous determination of LR2009-038 removing his name from the eligible list for Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee until November 11, 2012, that Order is final, is not before the Commission for review, and has not and will not be altered in any way by this decision.
R.R. 22a-23a. In response to this order, Mansfield filed the instant petition for review.
The Civil Service Commission's order does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law that are required in an agency's adjudication. 2 Pa. C.S. §507.[1] The absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law makes it impossible to evaluate the substance of Mansfield's claims. However, the Commission was not required to comply with the Administrative Agency Law when it removed Mansfield's name from the eligibility list. This is because its decision to remove Mansfield's name from the list was not an "adjudication, " which is a final order that affects "personal or property rights [or] privileges" recognized under statute or constitution. 2 Pa. C.S. §101.[2]
It is well-settled that an individual does not have a property right in a government job he does not yet have. Marino v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police, 486 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (holding State Police cadets did not have a property interest in positions with the State Police because they were not yet employees); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). Nor does the Civil Service Act, Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P.S. §§741.1 – 741.1005, give a prospective employee the right to challenge the Commission's decision to remove him from the certified list of eligible employees so long as the removal is not the result of untoward discrimination.[3] Section 28(c) of the Civil Service Act expressly denies probationary employees who are discharged for unsatisfactory work the right to challenge their discharge. 71 P.S. §741.1005(c).[4] If a probationary employee has no right to challenge his discharge, a fortiori, a person has no right to challenge his removal from a list of eligible employees.
The removal of a prospective employee from the eligibility list is governed solely by a management directive. A management directive is one of several tools used by the Governor to manage executive branch agencies and employees under the Governor's control. Cutler v. State Civil Service Commission, 924 A.2d 706, 710-12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (explaining the nature of a management directive and how it differs from an administrative agency regulation promulgated under the Commonwealth Documents Law, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 769, as amended, 45 P.S. §§1102-1602, and 45 Pa. C.S. §§501-907).
Management Directive 580.34 sets forth the procedure by which an executive branch agency under the Governor's management, known as the "appointing authority, " may seek to have a prospective employee removed from the Civil Service Commission's certified list of eligible employees for positions with that agency. Management Directive 580.34 requires the appointing authority to submit this request in writing to the Civil Service Commission and to notify the prospective employee who is the subject of the request. Management Directive 580.34(7)(a)(1), (2).[5] The appointing authority must provide a "merit-related" reason for the removal request, that is, the "reason must touch upon the eligible's competency and ability to perform in the position for which the eligible list has been prepared." Management Directive 580.34(7)(a)(2)(a). The Management Directive vests the Commission with "sole discretion" to decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on the agency's request for the removal; to hold a short oral argument; or to grant the request without an oral argument. Management Directive 580.34(7)(b)(1)(a)-(d).[6] When the Commission decides to grant oral argument, it "inform[s] both parties of the decision made." Management Directive 580.34(6)(b)(2).
This Court recently held that the Commission's decision to remove a prospective employee's name from an eligibility list is beyond judicial review. Frankowski v. State Civil Service Commission (Department of Labor and Industry), __A.3d__ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 638 C.D. 2012, filed May 7, 2013). We explained that the Civil Service Act does not give prospective employees removed from an eligibility list a right to obtain a hearing on that removal or to appeal the Commission's removal decision.[7] Neither does Management Directive 580.34. The Administrative Agency Law's requirement that an agency must hold a formal administrative hearing before issuing an adjudication has no application to an agency's request of the Civil Service Commission to remove a prospective employee from a certified eligibility list.