[IPAC-List] Civil service eligible lists and USERRA

[Partain, Steven C.]

To those of you practicing in civil service-regulated environments, I have a question that is pretty esoteric and may not resonate with anyone, but I thought I'd give it a shot with this group:

We have local civil service rules (which must be consistent with principles of state civil service law) providing the appointing authority two names from the top of a ranked eligible list to be considered for one promotional vacancy.  When the list is comprised of a single individual, the appointing authority may elect to consider that individual in isolation, or cancel the list to exercise its right to two eligibles to consider, and conduct a new exam to generate a new eligible list.  If the latter, the individual who was impacted may transfer his/her eligibility to the new list based on previous score but can opt to retest and take higher score.

I don't know how typical that structure is in other civil service environments, but my question is really about removing this transfer of eligibility provision altogether.  We're exploring the idea of eliminating this provision but are concerned about impact to legally protected groups.  The primary one that comes to mind is military service personnel covered under USERRA.  If Joe Guard is deployed and unavailable to be considered for a vacancy, and the list is cancelled (prior to expiration), it would seem that at a minimum USERRA would require us to extend his eligibility.

Again, I don't know how common this eligibility transfer provision is in other civil service rules, so this may not resonate.  But if anyone has a parallel set of provisions and has addressed this, I would appreciate your input.

Thanks,

____________________________________________________
Steven Partain | HR Manager
Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
Direct: 503-259-1292
www.tvfr.com<http://www.tvfr.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20130326/4cdf8ce2/attachment.html>