Mr. Richards filed a grievance on September 13, 1999, seeking to challenge the DOP's refusal to reallocate him to ISM III. At each level of the grievance procedure, the decision of the DOP was affirmed. After the Grievance Board issued its written decision denying relief, Mr. Richards appealed the decision to the circuit court. The circuit court ultimately affirmed the Grievance Board decision by order entered December 5, 2001. From this ruling, Mr. Richards now appeals.

        Grievance rulings involve a combination of both deferential and plenary review. Since a reviewing court is obligated to give deference to factual findings rendered by an administrative law judge, a circuit court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the hearing examiner with regard to factual determinations. Credibility determinations made by an administrative law judge are similarly entitled to deference. Plenary review is conducted as to the conclusions of law and application of law to the facts, which are reviewed de novo.

Within the confines of this standard, we will analyze the issue raised by Mr. Richards.

        We find that the Nature of Work requirements for the ISM II and ISM III positions are similar, but not identical.   (See footnote 5)  The actual differences between the two positions are set out in the Distinguishing Characteristics specifications for the respective positions.   (See footnote 6)  The ALJ documented the differences in the ISM II and ISM III positions by relying specifically on the descriptions as the same are set forth by the Distinguishing Characteristics section of the respective job specifications. One of the critical differences found by the ALJ is as follows:

        The Information Systems Manager II is responsible for “overseeing a staff involved in programming, or system development in addition to distribution, coordination, and/or support services . . . the staff encompasses several units involved in separate agency functions[.]”

        The Information Systems Manager III position is “distinguished from the other levels [of Information Systems Manager] by the oversight of several units of professional, paraprofessional, technical and supervisory staff[.]
In the final analysis the ALJ found that the ISM II position requires supervision of nonsupervisory staff. In contrast, the ISM III position requires supervision of supervisory staff. In this case, the record is clear in establishing that Mr. Richards does not supervise supervisors. In fact, it appears that Mr. Richards directly performs much of the work assigned to him.

        Mr. Richards suggests that the DOP's denial of his efforts to be reclassified was based merely upon a comparison of the number of people he supervised, verses the number of people supervised by the two employees who were reclassified as ISM III.    (See footnote 7)  The record does not support his assertion. In the DOP's denial of Mr. Richards' reallocation, the DOP took into consideration the overall greater managerial responsibilities assigned to the two reclassified employees.   (See footnote 8)  In doing so, the DOP determined that all of the work performed by those two employees met the standard for ISM III. The same could not be found for Mr. Richards.   (See footnote 9) 

        Although the ALJ found that some of the technical work performed by Mr. Richards is set out in ISM III, Mr. Richards simply does not perform the higher level managerial tasks set out in ISM III. This conclusion was reached by the DOP and affirmed by the ALJ as well as the circuit court. We see no basis for disturbing this well-founded conclusion.

Footnote: 1

    While the ALJ did address Mr. Richards' grievance as one of misclassification, we note that such was done by using an apparently erroneous definition of the term “reclassification”. The ALJ's order does appear to define reallocation broader than the administrative rules suggest. According to the ALJ's order, reallocation is defined by the administrative rules as “[r]eassignment by the Director of Personnel of a position from one classification to a different classification on the basis of a significant change in the kind or difficulty of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position or to correct a position misclassification.” (Emphasis added). Under this definition of reallocation, misclassification is a component. However, in our review of the administrative rules effective when Mr. Richards filed his grievance, reallocation was not defined as the same is set out in the ALJ's order. Under the administrative rules in place when Mr. Richards filed his grievance, reallocation was defined as “[r]eassignment by the Director of Personnel of a position from one classification to a different classification on the basis of a significant change in the kind or difficulty of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position.” This definition was in effect beginning July 1, 1998, through June 30, 2000. The same definition is used in the current administrative rules which became effective July 1, 2000. See 143 CSR 1 § 3.78 (“Reallocation: Reassignment by the Director of Personnel of a position from one classification to a different classification on the basis of a significant change in the kind or level of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position.”). Notwithstanding the apparent unsupportable broad definition given to the term reallocation by the ALJ, we will address the misclassification issue.

        Under administrative direction, performs advanced level administrative and supervisory duties directing the data processing operations of a medium sized or larger agency with a comprehensive, full-range data processing function. May also include specialty administrators in the State's central facility departments with multi-faceted and well-developed data processing functions. Activities supervised include: application programming, computer operations, support services, personal computer support or system development. Directly, or through lower level supervisors, schedules work and sets unit priorities for the most efficient utilization of equipment and personnel. Resolves equipment problems and coordinates system usage by agency personnel. Provides advice and assistance to higher level management. Performs related work as required.

    The description of the Nature of Work for an ISM III position is as follows:

        Under administrative direction, performs advanced level administrative and supervisory duties in directing the data processing operations within State agencies with comprehensive, full-range data processing functions or in the State central data facility oversees a specialized unit or several units providing statewide services. Activities supervised include: application programming, program design, computer operations, network support or system development. Directly, or through lower level supervisors, schedules work and sets agency- wide data priorities and provides for the most efficient utilization of equipment and personnel. Fully responsible for hardware and software problem resolution and the coordination of system usage by agency personnel. Provides advice and assistance to top management. Performs related work as required.

        Information Systems Manager III is distinguished from the other levels by the oversight of several units of professional, paraprofessional, technical and supervisory staff such as programming, support service including LAN management, network support (both hardware and software) or data management. In the larger state agencies, Information Systems Manager III is responsible for overseeing the work of a broad scope of an agency's information staff and reports directly to the agency's Management Information System Director. The incumbent has wide latitude in the planning and implementation of agency-wide automation needs. In the state central data facility, Information Systems Manager III is responsible for consulting services, development center, automation resource center, network services, operations center as examples.