Section Per-A 207.12 - Review of Cases(a) In probationary termination appeals, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination was arbitrary, illegal, capricious or made in bad faith. Allegations that the appellant does not know the reason(s) for the dismissal, or evidence that the appointing authority took no formal disciplinary action to correct the employee's unsatisfactory performance or failure to meet the work standard prior to dismissing the employee, shall not be deemed sufficient to warrant the appellant's reinstatement.(b) In disciplinary appeals, including termination, disciplinary demotion, suspension without pay, withholding of an employee's annual increment or issuance of a written warning, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:(1) The disciplinary action was unlawful;(2) The appointing authority violated the rules of the division of personnel by imposing the disciplinary action under appeal;(3) The disciplinary action was unwarranted by the alleged conduct or failure to meet the work standard in light of the facts in evidence; or(4) The disciplinary action was unjust in light of the facts in evidence.(c) In appeals involving denial of promotion or selection to a vacancy, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision was unreasonable or unlawful because:(1) The appellant met the minimum educational and work experience requirements for selection to the vacancy;(2) The appellant possessed the personal and professional qualifications for selection to the vacancy; and(3) The appointing authority abused its discretion by denying selection to the person best qualified for selection to the vacancy, or that the non-selection decision was unlawful.(d) In appeals arising out of an application of rules adopted by the director of personnel, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:(1) The rule was incorrectly interpreted and applied;(2) The rule was invalid; or(3) The appointing authority's or the personnel director's application of the rule was unlawful.(e) In appeals involving an alleged conflict of interest, the board shall determine if the appointing authority proves by a preponderance of the evidence that allowing the appellant to hold a remunerative elective public office, or to have other employment creates an actual, direct and substantial conflict of interest with the appellant's employment in the state classified service which cannot be alleviated by the appellant's abstaining from actions directly affecting such employment in the classified service.(f) In appeals of a position reclassification or reallocation, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that:(1) The duties of the position have changed sufficiently to warrant reclassification or reallocation; or(2) The position was improperly allocated or classified in accordance with the director's rules or the classification plan.(g) The board shall have no jurisdiction to hear reclassification or reallocation appeals if the reason(s) given for the appeal include any of the following:(1) The position is improperly classified because the personal qualifications of the employee exceed the minimum qualifications for the position in question;(2) The employee has held the position for a long period of time;(3) The employee has reached the maximum of the assigned salary grade of the position;(4) The employee has held other positions or passed examinations that are not required for the position in question; or(5) The position classification does not address the cost of living or related economic factors.N.H. Admin. Code § Per-A 207.12
(See Revision Note at chapter heading for Per-A 200) #7378, eff 10-23-00; ss by #9205, eff 10-23-08