41-771. Powers and duties of director relating to employees in covered service
The director shall adopt rules and procedures that are applicable only to employees in covered service. The rules and procedures shall provide for:
1. The continuation of a probationary period for probationary employees.
2. A minimum period of original probationary service following the initial appointment of a full authority peace officer as certified by the Arizona peace officer standards and training board or the initial appointment of a correctional captain, correctional lieutenant, correctional sergeant, correctional corporal, correctional officer I, correctional officer II, correctional officer III, correctional officer IV, community corrections unit supervisor, community corrections group supervisor or community corrections officer. During an original probationary period, the probationary employee shall perform the actual duties of the position and may be discharged without cause. The director shall establish a period of promotional probation service.
3. Disciplinary action to be taken against an employee only if cause exists.
4. Reduction in force by reason of lack of monies or work, abolition of a position or a material change in duties or organization as provided in section 41-772.
5. The continuation of the same annual leave accrual rate and the maximum number of annual leave hours that may carry over into a new calendar year as an uncovered employee for an employee of the state department of corrections who is employed on September 14, 2024 as a correctional captain, correctional lieutenant, correctional sergeant, correctional corporal, correctional officer IV, community corrections unit supervisor or community corrections group supervisor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1978–2006 · leading case:
McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 18× “” The Livestock Board contends the phrase renders plaintiff terminable at will by the Board, and that plaintiff is thus exempted from the Merit System by A.R.S. § 41-771, which states: The provisions of this article and article 6 [the Merit System] do not apply to: $ + # (12)…”
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 42× “) together with the statutes relating to the Personnel Board (A.R.S. § 41-771 et seq. ) were intended to give the Personnel Board jurisdiction over Supreme Court employees concerning whistle-blowing complaints, and, if so, (2) whether such jurisdiction would be in violation of…”
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano, 143 P.3d 1023 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 5× “It adds “correctional officers and juvenile correctional officers, state officers and employees who are appointed or employed after December 31, 2006 and who are at a pay grade of twenty-four or above” to the class of exempt employees.”
Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “We hold that his termination was not reviewable under the A.R.A. Johnson was appointed to the Board by the Governor pursuant to A.”
Lara v. Cowan, 848 F. Supp. 1456 (D. Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 4× “He therefore had no reasonable expectation of continued employment in the Grade 25 position under Arizona state law.”
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 13× “Under § 41-771, Supreme Court employees are specifically exempted from that system.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-771(12) — 1 case
McLeod v. Chilton, 643 P.2d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“” The Livestock Board contends the phrase renders plaintiff terminable at will by the Board, and that plaintiff is thus exempted from the Merit System by A.R.S. § 41-771, which states: The provisions of this article and article 6 [the Merit System] do not apply to: $ + # (12)…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-771(A)(12) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-771(A)(2) — 3 cases
Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“We hold that his termination was not reviewable under the A.R.A. Johnson was appointed to the Board by the Governor pursuant to A.”
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991).
“) together with the statutes relating to the Personnel Board (A.R.S. § 41-771 et seq. ) were intended to give the Personnel Board jurisdiction over Supreme Court employees concerning whistle-blowing complaints, and, if so, (2) whether such jurisdiction would be in violation of…”
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Under § 41-771, Supreme Court employees are specifically exempted from that system.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-771(A)(5) — 2 cases
McDonald v. Campbell, 821 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1991).
“) together with the statutes relating to the Personnel Board (A.R.S. § 41-771 et seq. ) were intended to give the Personnel Board jurisdiction over Supreme Court employees concerning whistle-blowing complaints, and, if so, (2) whether such jurisdiction would be in violation of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-771(B)(1) — 1 case
Lara v. Cowan, 848 F. Supp. 1456 (D. Ariz. 1994).
“He therefore had no reasonable expectation of continued employment in the Grade 25 position under Arizona state law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.