CRANSTON — As a cashier in the city tax collector’s office, Lisa Moynihan holds what is known as a classified job — one that required her to take a test to show that she was qualified, and one that tends to pay less than similar “unclassified” positions that are filled by the mayor.

Until now, the “classified” designation has controlled who could “bump” Moynihan from her job in the event of layoffs. In simple terms, more-senior classified employees could bump less-senior employees, and unclassified employees could bump only unclassified employees with less seniority.

Those rules would change under an ordinance adopted last month by the City Council, allowing a number of positions that are now unclassified to become classified, thereby expanding the pools of candidates who could bump someone out of a job.

Moynihan, a 24-year city employee with a roughly $38,000 annual salary, sees it as increasing the potential threat to her continued employment.

“Now they turn all these unclassified employees into classified positions, and they’re making more money than the classified positions,” she said. “It’s not fair at all.”

The ordinance does not say so specifically, but it primarily affects the 140 members, most of them in clerical positions, of Teamsters Local 251. About half of the members, including Moynihan, are classified, and half are unclassified.

Members of the all-Democrat council say the ordinance — vetoed last week by Republican Mayor Allan W. Fung — is intended to bring the city into compliance with its charter.

Under the charter, the list of unclassified employees includes elected officials, council appointees, board and commission members, department heads and a number of other specific jobs. All others are said to be classified.

But Councilman Anthony J. Lupino said the list of unclassified jobs has expanded over the years, as mayors have appointed people to posts that blur the distinction between classified and unclassified.

“There are very few jobs that are listed in the charter … as unclassified, and there shouldn’t be more,” Lupino said. “We have, in my opinion, been in violation of the charter, because the charter specifically states which jobs should be classified and which jobs should be unclassified.”

Fung, however, has raised several concerns with the ordinance, saying it would invite legal challenges because it changes “the terms and conditions of employment” as defined in the Teamsters union contract, and also because it requires affected unclassified employees who have held their job for less than a year to take a test, even if they have already completed their probation period.

The Republican mayor said the ordinance is an attempt by the council to interject itself into the administration’s sphere.

“It’s yet again the council trying to step into the mayor’s role in the day-to-day operations that I have to oversee,” he said.

The ordinance has the backing of union leaders. Steven M. Labrie, business agent for Local 251, agreed with Lupino that the ranks of unclassified employees have expanded beyond what the charter calls for, and he disputed the notion that the ordinance changes employment conditions, saying it merely expands the bumping pool. The change goes both ways, he said, because it could also result in classified employees bumping less senior employees who formerly were unclassified.

But Robin Muksian-Schutt, Fung’s director of administration, noted that the Teamsters contract, which expired in 2008, specifies the makeup of the classified and unclassified bumping pools. And according to Evan Kirshenbaum, deputy city solicitor, that means the ordinance affects the contractual rights of employees — thus straying into an area that should be governed by contract negotiations.

Kirshenbaum also said the council is going beyond its powers, as defined in the charter, by determining hiring practices that are supposed to be under the purview of the personnel director.

Council President John E. Lanni Jr., who introduced the ordinance, did not return calls Wednesday. Lanni did not vote on the ordinance, saying at the June 11 meeting of the council’s Finance Committee that his wife is one of the unclassified employees who would be affected by the change.

The council is expected to respond to Fung’s veto on July 27.

redgar@projo.com