Section 105.3. Statement of reasons

Notices of removal, involuntary demotion or suspension issued to regular employees shall include a clear statement of the reasons therefore, sufficient to apprise the employee of the grounds upon which the charges are based. Notices determined to be defective may result in the reversal of the personnel action.

The provisions of this § 105.3 adopted October 18, 1961; amended October 15, 1964 and April 16, 1970; amended March 29, 1985, effective March 30, 1985, 15 Pa.B. 1151; amended November 15, 1991, effective November 16, 1991, 21 Pa.B. 5334; amended March 12, 2004, effective March 13, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 1442. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (285981) to (285982).

Notation

Notes of Decisions

Applicability

The State Civil Service Commission did not err in allowing the Department of Community Affairs to present testimony and evidence indicating that the employee was furloughed due to lack of work even though the furlough notice indicated that he was being furloughed for lack of funds, where this regulation did not direct the appointing authority to provide reasons for a furlough, and where, because there can only be two reasons for a furlough, an employee is on notice that he or she is being furloughed due to lack of funds or work. McAndrew v. State Civil Service Commission, 736 A.2d 26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999); appeal dismissed 758 A.2d 1167 (Pa. 2000).

The provisions of this section, which require a statement of reasons to be provided the employee in case of removal and involuntary retirement, are not applicable to furlough actions; it is sufficient if notice adequately informs the employe of the fact that he will be furloughed. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute v. Russell, 465 A.2d 1313 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

Neither the provisions of 71 P. S. § 741.950 nor those in this section require that reclassified employees be informed of the loss of seniority rights acquired as a member of a different bargaining unit upon reclassification. Johnson v. Department of Transportation, 466 A.2d 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).

Sufficiency of Notice

Although the notice requirements of § 105.3 are mandatory, failure to adhere to them is not grounds for automatic nullification of the personnel action taken. The removal notice need only be framed in a manner which enables the employee to discern the nature of the charges and adequately to prepare a defense. Due process of law is afforded when the employee is informed with reasonable certainty of the substance of the charges. Bosnjak v. State Civil Service Commission, 781 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

A notice of the suspension of a staff psychiatrist was sufficiently clear so as to inform her of the charges, where the terms ‘‘proper allegations and predisciplinary conferences’’ placed her on notice that her suspension was due to her administration and monitoring of Lithium prescriptions to her patients. Bazargani v. State Civil Service Commission, 711 A.2d 529 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).

Notice of Ethics code violations referring specifically to aspects of employee responsibilities where deficiency was alleged is sufficient to enable employee to discern the nature of the charges and to prepare a defense thereby satisfying both Civil Service Commission requirements and due process requirements. Department of Corrections v. Adamson, 567 A.2d 763 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); appeal denied 578 A.2d 932 (Pa. 1990).

Notice of Ethics code violations referring specifically to aspects of employee responsibilities where deficiency was alleged is sufficient to enable employe to discern the nature of the charges and to prepare a defense thereby satisfying both Civil Service Commission requirements and due process requirements. Department of Corrections v. Adamson, 567 A.2d 763 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

A regular status employee has not been given adequate notice of the reasons for dismissal if the only reason given is ‘‘continued unsatisfactory work performance.’’ Wood v. Department of Public Welfare, 411 A.2d 281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).

While a listing of specific incidents of an employee’s behavior in the notice may be unnecessary, the reasons listed should at least refer specifically to those aspects of the employee’s responsibility in which he was found to be deficient and should identify those deficiencies with particularity. Chavis v. Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, 370 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977).

A removal notice need not be drafted with the certainty of a bill of indictment but must be framed in a manner which enables the employee to discern the nature of the charges and to prepare adequately his defense. Chavis v. Philadelphia County Board of Assistance, 370 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977).

Charges against regular status employee in charge of maintenance at State hospital alleging ‘‘past performance as relates to job duty and failure to make command decisions while under the direct influence of alcohol’’ is an adequate notice of charges against him. Foster v. Civil Service Commission, 321 A.2d 409 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974).

Under the 1973 version this section, a notice of furlough met the requirements of this section by stating the reasons for the furlough, if in fact the notice gives sufficient reason. Marks v. Civil Service Commission, 299 A.2d 691 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973).

Cross References

This section cited in 4 Pa. Code § 105.1 (relating to written notice required).