[Previous material] [Next material]
103.09 County merit system appeals
The Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the decision of the Kenosha County Department of Social Services regarding the filling of a new position of Income Maintenance Supervisor within that department, inasmuch as §230.45(l)(e), Stats., provides for the Commission to hear appeals, when authorized under county merit system rules under §49.50, Stats., and the rules promulgated pursuant to §49.50(2) and (5), Stats., (see §HSS 5.07(3), Wis. Adm. Code) do not provide for the Commission to hear appeals of this nature. Cassity v. DHSS, 82-195-PC, 11/11/82
By administrative rule, the Commission's authority under §230.45(i)(e), Stats., does not extend to matters relating to examination. Goehring v. DHSS, 78-133-PC, 10/27/78
103.11 Actions delegated by the Administrator/Secretary
The decision by the employing agency to refuse the appellant's request to review documents relating to the decision not to select him for a vacant position explicitly relied upon §230.13 and was considered to have been issued under authority delegated by the Secretary of DER, thereby making it appealable under §230.44(1)(b). Even if it were concluded that the delegated authority exercised by the employing agency was from the Administrator of DMRS, the transaction would be appealable under §230.44(1)(a). Deppen v. DILHR & DER, 91-0083-PC, 3/5/92
Where the respondent UW lacked delegated authority from DER to have changed the classification of appellant's position to the PA Supervisor series, the UW's failure to have recommended a supervisory classification was not an appealable action. Where DER had not issued a decision with respect to the PA Supervisor series, the Commission limited its post-hearing order to classifications for which the UW had delegated authority. Cernohous v. UW & DER, 89-0131-PC, 9/13/90
Delegating a personnel decision, such as a certification action, does nothing to remove the decision from the scope of the Commission's review of decisions of the administrator of DMRS under §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Thompson v. DMRS & DNR, 87-0204-PC, 6/29/88
When the agency acted to deny a reclassification on a delegated basis and it later was determined that there in fact had been no delegation, the Commission lacked jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(l)(b), Stats., to hear an appeal from that denial. Schiffer v. DOT & DP, 81-4, 342-PC, 2/18/82
Where the employe's supervisor requested reclassification of the employe's position to the Research Analyst 3 level and DILHR effected this on a delegated basis and the incumbent then appealed because he felt reclassification should have been to the Research Analyst 4 level, and DILHR did not have the delegated authority to reclassify to the Research Analyst 4 level, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. The Commission noted that the appellant declined the opportunity to have the division of personnel act on the request for reclassification to 4 level. McPeek v. DILHR & DP, 78-252-PC, 1/30/79
103.12 Non-classified employes/positions
Where the position in question was moved from the classified to the unclassified service via legislative enactment, no appointment was necessary to place the employe in the position following the change in status. Bahr v. Investment Board, 89-0009-PC, 6/21/89 [Note: In Bahr v. State Inv. Board, 186 Wis. 2d 379, 521 N.W.2d 152 (Court of Appeals, 1994), the court held that a plaintiff who had been employed by the Investment Board in a classified civil service position, but whose position was subsequently moved by statute from the classified to the unclassified service, was deprived of due process premised upon a protected property interest where the Investment Board had fired the plaintiff without following the procedures of the civil service law. The court was not reviewing the Commission's decision.]
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over a discharge appeal where the appellant was an employe in the unclassified service at the time of his discharge, even though the appellant had obtained permanent status in class in his position before that position was moved from the classified to the unclassified service. Bahr v. Investment Board, 89-0009-PC, 4/28/89; rehearing denied, 6/21/89 [Note: In Bahr v. State Inv. Board, 186 Wis. 2d 379, 521 N.W.2d 152 (Court of Appeals, 1994), the court held that a plaintiff who had been employed by the Investment Board in a classified civil service position, but whose position was subsequently moved by statute from the classified to the unclassified service, was deprived of due process premised upon a protected property interest where the Investment Board had fired the plaintiff without following the procedures of the civil service law. The court was not reviewing the Commission's decision.]
The Commission may not review a decision to create project positions to perform a specific function or the appropriateness of the duties assigned to a project position. WSEU v. UW, 84-0019-PC, 4/25/84
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over appeals of the discharges of project employes. The rights and privileges granted to project employes under §230.27(2), Stats., are distinguished from the rights granted to non-represented, classified employes under §§230.34(l)(a) and 230.44(l)(c), Stats. Hart v. UW & DER, 83-0190-PC, 11/9/83
In the absence of specific evidence as to who made the decision as to whether certain positions should be in the classified or unclassified service, it must be concluded that the decision is attributable as a matter of law to the secretary of DER pursuant to §230.04(l), Stats., and the Commission has no jurisdiction over an appeal of such a decision as it is not a decision of the administrator which could be appealed pursuant to §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Smith & Berry v. DILHR & DP, 81-412, 415-PC, 9/23/82
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from the termination of employment of a project employe. Appellant's status was found to have been, at all times, that of a project appointee to a project position. Busch v. HEAB, 82-58-PC, 6/25/82
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of a discharge brought by a project employe. LaPorte v. DILHR, 81-153-PC, 10/30/81
The Commission lacks the authority to hear an appeal from a decision to create a project position. Manlove v. DILHR, 80-355-PC, 4/23/81
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of a selection process for an academic staff position, inasmuch as the requirements for the examination and appointment processes set forth in subchapter II of chapter 230, Stats., and the authority of the administrator of the Division of Personnel, apply only to positions in the classified service, which does not include academic staff positions, and hence there can be no basis for an appeal under §§230.44(l)(a) or (b), Stats., and the Commission can discern no other basis for jurisdiction. Schleicher v. UW, 80-123-PC, 9/29/80
The Commission is unable to ascertain any provision in the statutes which would authorize it to hear a direct appeal of a decision by the Board of Regents to designate certain positions as academic staff. WSEU v. UW, 80-149-PC, 8/19/80
There is no statutory basis for Commission jurisdiction over an appeal of the termination of limited term employment. Klopp v. UW, 79-33-PC, 5/7/79
The Commission lacks jurisdiction to review an appointment to an unclassified position. Wing v. UW, 78-203-PC, 4/19/79
The Commission lacks jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(c), Stats., of an appeal by an employe with academic staff status whose limited term appointment was not renewed, as this statute only covers employes in the classified service, which does not include academic staff. Rodell v. UW, 78-233-PC, 2/28/79
103.13 Work assignments
The decision to reallocate appellants’ positions to a particular classification level rather than to another classification level was a decision made by the secretary of the Department of Employment Relations (or delegated by the secretary) pursuant to §230.09(2)(a), Stats., rather than a decision by an appointing authority that relates to the hiring process. Appellants' motion to supplement the issue for hearing to include a review of the reallocation decisions on an "abuse of discretion" standard was denied. Arenz et al. v. DOT & DER, 98-0073-PC, etc., 2/10/99
Under certain circumstances, a nominally temporary assignment in the classified civil service may become permanent after the passage of a significant amount of time. In a case involving an issue of constructive discipline, "temporary" reassignment lasting less than a year did not become constructively permanent due to the passage of time. Appellant's non-contractual grievance relating to his reassignment from his position as superintendent of a correctional center to a community corrections office pending an investigation of appellant’s conduct at the correctional center was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Stacy v. DOC, 98-0039-PC, 8/26/98
The Commission lacks jurisdiction pursuant to §230.45(i)(c), Stats., over a non-contractual grievance relating to the assignment of duties to a represented employe. (dictum) Teggatz v. State Pers. Comm., Winnebago County Circuit Court, 80-CV-1092, 1/8/82
The Personnel Board (now Commission) lacks jurisdiction over an appeal by a represented employe occupying a position classified as Institutional Aide 2 alleging that he had been improperly assigned the duty of performing non-emergency mopping. Rich v. State Pers. Board, Dane County Circuit Court, 159-084, 12/23/80
The reassignment of appellant, a supervisor, from the security unit at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics to the Oakhill Correctional Institution is not a personnel action "after certification which is related to the hiring process." Asche v. DOC, 90-0159-PC, 5/21/97
The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged constructive disciplinary demotion. In order to prevail, an employee must establish not only that changes in assigned duties and responsibilities imposed by management reduced the effective classification of the position, but also that the appointing authority had the intent to cause this result and to effectively discipline the employe. Davis v. ECB, 91-0214-PC, 6/12/92
The appellant's claim that an acting assignment exceeded the legally permissible duration was dismissed given the Commission's lack of authority to review the employing agency's conduct relative to the acting assignment question and given the absence of any contention as well as any indication that some sort of request to formally assign acting responsibilities to the appellant was actually before the Administrator of DMRS. Bauer v. DATCP & DER, 91-0128-PC, 4/1/92
There is no statutory provision for a direct appeal to the Commission of the denial of an acting assignment and therefore, the Commission lacks jurisdiction for that claim. Witt v. DILHR & DER, 85-0015-PC, 9/26/85
A reassignment to a different shift is not a disciplinary action that is appealable to the Commission. Henderson v. DHSS, 85-0045-PC, 8/15/85
There is no basis for jurisdiction over an appeal of the assignment of duties to a limited term employe (LTE). Schaeffer et al. v. DOT, 83-0059-PC, 7/7/83
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal arising from alleged reassignments of duties and responsibilities of appellant's position. The administrator of the Division of Personnel had determined that there had been no changes in the duties and responsibilities that would affect the position's classification and decided that no further action would be taken. The legal basis for the administrator's inquiry was solely in connection with the question of whether the position was correctly classified. Because the appellant sought review of the alleged reassignment of duties and not of the proper classification of her position, the Commission lacked jurisdiction. Roberts v. DHSS & DP, 81-44-PC, 7/27/81
The Commission is not prepared to declare that the assignment of job duties and responsibilities on a routine basis outside of and not reflected in the class specifications and position description for a position is per se, illegal, given the explicit statutory recognition of the right of the appointing authority to reassign work outside of the class specifications, the use of the class specifications to reflect merely the majority of a position's duties and responsibilities, the crippling effect if work outside the classification would be prohibited, and the absence of any specific statutory language prohibiting the assignment of duties outside the classification. However, some work assignments may be reviewable where the reassignment action runs afoul of laws in other areas, such as employe discipline. Request for Declaratory Ruling, 77-187, 6/1/81
There is no statutory basis for an appeal to the Commission of the assignment of job duties to an employe by the employing agency. Kienbaum v. UW, 79-246-PC, 4/25/80
Commission lacks jurisdiction under §230.45(l)(c), Stats. of an appeal by a represented employe of the denial of a non-contract grievance relating to the assignment of duties because §230.45(l)(c), Stats. limits jurisdiction to appeals of non-contract grievances "relating to conditions of employment." Teggatz v. DHSS, 79-73-PC, 12/13/79
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of the assignment of duties as against the argument that this is cognizable under §111.91(3), Stats. Phillips v. DPI, 79-59-PC, 8/30/79; Ray v. UW, 78-129-PC, 8/30/79
103.17 Review of decision of impartial hearing officer
Request for hearing before hearing officer under Art. X of WSEU agreement is not required to have been initiated as non-contractual grievance, and the Commission has jurisdiction.
Ray v. UW, 78-129-PC, 3/9/79
103.18 Decisions of the Administrator/Secretary other than those decisions listed in 103.03 through .13
The exempt or non-exempt status of appellant's position under the Fair Labor Standards Act is not a subject that the Commission has statutory authority to review. The class specifications did not indicate which class levels were considered exempt under the FLSA. Moss v. DER, 97-0062-PC, 2/11/98
Individual acts of harassment by petitioner's co-workers are clearly not "personnel decisions" regarding reclassification, as contemplated by §230.44(1)(b), Stats. Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93-CV-1247, 3/3/95; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 95-0747, 2/19/96
There is no basis to believe that the legislature, by allowing the appeal of personnel decisions to the Commission under §230.44(1)(b), Stats., intended that the Commission would oversee the otherwise lawful assignment and oversight of day-to-day duties. Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93-CV-1247, 3/3/95; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 95-0747, 2/19/96
Protection from retaliation, even that which stems from a reclassification request, is not included in the language of §230.09(2)(a), Stats., and therefore, is not within the plain meaning of §230.44(1)(b). Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93-CV-1247, 3/3/95; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 95-0747, 2/19/96
The Commission has no statutory authority to review the action that the Department of Employment Relations takes under §230.09(1)(am), Stats. Swim & Wilkinson v. DER, 92-0576, 0613-PC, 1/16/97
The Commission’s appeal authority covers specific classification decisions based on existing class specifications. The Commission has no authority to review DER’s decisions to create or change the classifications themselves or to assign or reassign classifications to pay ranges, or to fail to act in this regard. Day et al. & Jerdee v. DILHR [DWD] & DER, 95-0195, 0201-PC, 9/17/96
The Commission lacks jurisdiction to decide whether respondent had improperly calculated appellant’s rate of pay for the period before his position was reclassified, even though the respondent had specifically acceded to consideration of the issue at hearing. A decision to change an employe’s rate of pay is not among those personnel actions listed in §230.44(1), Stats., that are appealable, where there is no reduction in base pay for reasons of discipline and the pay rate decision is not part of the initial hiring process. Steber v. DHSS & DER, 96-0002-PC, 6/25/96
Approval by the Administrator of the Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection of an appointing authority's request to establish or revise the employing unit structure of the agency is a "personnel decision" within the meaning of §230.44(1)(a), and, as such, is reviewable by the Commission. A "personnel decision" is a decision which affects the employment status of employes or applicants for employment and is not limited to discrete personnel transactions affecting individual employes or potential employes. WPEC v. DMRS, 95-0107-PC, 9/29/95
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over a dispute as to whether the pay calculations made as a result of a reclassification and regrade were correct. Heath & Mork v. DOC & DER, 94-0550-PC, 12/22/94
The decision as to whether or not a position should be included in the protective occupation status under the State's retirement program, ch. 40, Wis. Stats., is outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. Cox v. DER, 92-0806-PC, 11/3/94
An appeal with an issue relating to whether respondent had carried out an investigation was dismissed as moot or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim, where it was undisputed that respondent had investigated the matter to the extent it deemed necessary. ACE & Davies v. DMRS, 94-0060-PC, ACE & Davies v. DOA & DMRS, 94-0069-PC, 10/24/94
The Commission has the authority to review the decision to approve the filling of a project position on a project appointment basis and to approve the recruitment and selection procedures utilized to fill the position. ACE & Davies v. DMRS, 94-0060-PC, ACE & Davies v. DOA & DMRS, 94-0069-PC, 10/24/94
A decision to assign a classification to a pay range in one pay schedule rather than to a pay range in a second pay schedule does not fall within the scope of §230.09(2)(a), so it is not reviewable by the Commission. Johnson v. DER, 94-0064-PC, 7/25/94
The Commission has subject matter jurisdiction to review the initial classification given a new position, as an allocation decision under s. 230.09, Stats., even though the nature of the decision means the position has no incumbent at the time the decision is made. Holton v. DER & DILHR, 92-0717-PC, 11/29/93
An appointment letter which lists the class level of the position, does not affect the employe's rights, under Ch. 230, Stats., to appeal the initial allocation of the position Holton v. DER & DILHR, 92-0717-PC, 11/29/93
A negative action with respect to an employe's restoration eligibility involves the removal of the employe from a register, is legally attributable to the administrator and is an appealable decision pursuant to §230.44(1)(a), Stats. Appellant, who had been demoted in lieu of lay off, was informed that if he failed to accept restoration to a certain position he would forfeit any future restoration rights. Sundling v. UW, 93-0049-PC, 11/23/93
The language of §230.44(1)(b), permitting the appeal of decisions made or delegated by DER's secretary, is not broad enough to include alleged acts of retaliation for having previously pursued reclassification, such as the assignment of duties or interactions with supervisors and co-workers or related conduct attributable to an appointing authority. Seay v. DER & UW-Madison, 89-0082-PC-ER, 11/19/92; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 93-CV-1247, 3/3/95; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 95-0747, 2/19/96
The appellant's claim that an acting assignment exceeded the legally permissible duration was dismissed given the Commission's lack of authority to review the employing agency's conduct relative to the acting assignment question and given the absence of any contention as well as any indication that some sort of request to formally assign acting responsibilities to the appellant was actually before the Administrator of DMRS. Bauer v. DATCP & DER, 91-0128-PC, 4/1/92
The decision by the employing agency to refuse the appellant's request to review documents relating to the decision not to select him for a vacant position explicitly relied upon §230.13 and was considered to have been issued under authority delegated by the Secretary of DER, thereby making it appealable under §230.44(1)(b). Even if it were concluded that the delegated authority exercised by the employing agency was from the Administrator of DMRS, the transaction would be appealable under §230.44(1)(a). Deppen v. DILHR & DER, 91-0083-PC, 3/5/92
The language of §230.44(1)(a), Stats., which permits appeals from a "personnel decision under this subchapter made by the administrator" is referring to the Administrator of the Division of Merit Recruitment and selection within the Department of Employment Relations. A decision by an administrator within the Department of Administration denying a salary adjustment and establishing a seniority date was not reviewable under §230.44(1)(a). Landwehr v. DOA, 90-0289-PC, 6/12/91
The Commission does not have jurisdiction to review reallocation survey methodology per se. Mincy et al. v. DER, 90-0229, 0257-PC, 2/21/91; rehearing denied, 3/12/91
The Commission lacks authority to review a decision by the Secretary of DER to deny the appellant's request to convert her position from the classified service to an academic staff position. Buckley v. DER, 91-0018-PC, 5/1/91
The Commission's authority under §230.44(1)(b), Stats., over decisions to reallocate positions as part of the classification survey process does not extend to decisions setting the scope of the survey. An appeal of the decision not to review a particular position as part of a classification survey was dismissed where there was no indication that there was an individualized review of the appellant's position relative to the particular duties represented in the survey classifications prior to the reallocation of the positions which were included in the survey. Herrick v. DER, 90-0395-PC, 2/8/91
The Commission lacks the authority to review the conduct of DMRS in providing personnel testing services to non-state governmental units under §230.05(8), Stats. Garvoille v. DMRS, 90-0379-PC, 1/11/91
Various statements made to the appellant to the effect that her name would have been included on a certification list if a specific person on that list had not been included does not rise to the level of a personnel action or decision. No personnel transaction took place as a consequence of the statements and the administrator never reissued the certification list. Morris v. DMRS & DOT, 90-0232-PC, 11/16/90
Where respondent's brief indicated that the decision to require that candidates for Youth Counselor LTE positions have specified experience or training was made by the appointing authority rather than by DMRS and that the decision was substantive rather than procedural and where the appellant did not contest these statements, the Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Krause v. DHSS & DMRS, 89-0057-PC, 10/4/89
The Commission concluded that the record was inadequate to determine whether jurisdiction existed. DMRS was added as a party and the respondents were provided an opportunity to raise jurisdictional objections where appellant contested the requirement that candidates for Youth Counselor LTE positions have prior Youth Counselor experience or other specified experience or training. Krause v. DHSS, 89-0057-PC, 6/29/89
An agency's decision to fill a vacancy by utilizing a competitive procedure is not reviewable by the Commission. However, the decision of the administrator of DMRS, when reviewing the procedure used by an agency in filling a vacancy, to designate the underlying transaction as a transfer and not a promotion is reviewable under §230.44(1)(a), Stats. DMRS was added as a party. Meschefske v. DHSS, 88-0057-PC, 7/13/88
The Commission lacked the authority to review a decision by DMRS establishing the scope of recruitment where DMRS had never been identified as a party and the issue for hearing did not identify any pre-certification decision. Jensen v. UW-Milwaukee, 86-0144-PC, 11/4/87
Because the statutory authority for administering the job announcement/oral exam aspects of the recruitment and selection process prior to certification were vested exclusively in the administrator of DMRS pursuant to §230.05(2)(b), Stats., DVA was dismissed as a party to that portion of the appeal. Royston v. DVA, 86-0222-PC, 6/24/87
The Commission has authority under §230.44(l)(b), Stats., to review a determination of the effective date of a reclassification decision. Baggott v. DNR & DER, 87-0012-PC, 4/29/87
The Commission lacks the authority to rule on the question of the constitutionality of the statutes relating to the requirement of Wisconsin residency for civil service employment but may hear those aspects of an appeal relating to an alleged denial of constitutional rights as applied. Wiars v. DMRS, 86-0209-PC, 3/4/87
The statutory basis found in H 230.09(2)(a) and 44.(I)(b), Stats., is broad enough to encompass review of a decision, attributable to the respondent, not to further process a reclassification request. To hold otherwise would preclude administrative review of an incorrect decision not to review a reclassification request. Spilde v. DER, 86-0040-PC, 1/8/87
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal by represented employes which alleges that respondent improperly used hiring above the minimum (HAM) rather than raised hiring rate (RHR) when setting the rate of pay for new employes within appellant's classifications, since this subject matter constituted "wages, hours and conditions of employment" as that term was used in §111.93(3), Stats., and therefore the collective bargaining agreement has a superseding effect. This result is not disturbed by the fact that respondent has consistently agreed in other forums that this subject matter is a prohibited subject of bargaining, since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, and furthermore, respondent was unsuccessful in the aforesaid contention in the cited arbitrations. Brehmer v. DER, 85-0218-PC, 4/4/86; explained in denial of petition for rehearing, 5/23/86
The only aspect of the transfer process that is appealable to the Commission is the administrator's action (or inaction in failing) to authorize the transfer. An appeal of the administrator's decision does not lead to jurisdiction over the transfer itself which is a decision made by the appointing authority. Witt v. DILHR & DER, 85-0015-PC, 9/26/85
An alleged failure or refusal by the administrator of DMRS to submit appellant's name, as someone interested in transfer, to an appointing authority pursuant to §ER-Pers. 12.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, is appealable under §230.44(i)(a), Stats., as a decision of the administrator. Wing v. DPI & DER, 85-0013-PC, 9/20/85
The administrator did not make a "personnel decision" relative to appellant's attempted reinstatement that is appealable under §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Wing v. DER, 84-0084-PC, 4/3/85
The Commission lacks the authority to rule on the question of the constitutionality of the statutes relating to the requirement of Wisconsin residency for civil service employment. Presumably the Commission could consider questions concerning alleged constitutional violations emanating from the statutes as applied, the determination of which would not involve reaching any conclusions as to the facial constitutional validity of the statutes. McSweeney v. DOJ & DMRS, 84-0243-PC, 3/13/85
The Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider the appellants' contention that the existing class specifications should be rewritten to better identify their positions and the particular classifications should be assigned to higher pay ranges. Alleged errors in position standards and pay range assignments are not appealable to the Commission. Kaminski et al. v. DER, 84-0124-PC, 12/6/84
Where the appellant had asked the administrator to audit the actions of DHSS in filling a project position with a project appointment, where the administrator had responded by saying that DHSS's decision was "acceptable". and where the administrator's own rules require approval by the administrator for a project appointment, the Commission concluded that it had the authority to review the administrator's decision. WFT v. DMRS, 84-0085-PC, 10/10/84
The Commission found jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., over appellant's allegation that DER effectively decertified the appellant by advising an agency to ignore the appellant's name while selecting a candidate from a certification list that included the appellant. Pflugrad v. DER, DHSS & BVTAE, 83-0176-PC, 3/29/84
The mere failure of the administrator, DP, to act on a copy of a letter to the Commission, appealing the reassignment of duties to a limited term employe (LTE), does not constitute a "personnel decision of the administrator" cognizable under §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Schaeffer et al. v. DOT, 83-0059-PC, 7/7/83
The Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal of a transfer, to the extent that pursuant to §230.44(l)(a), Stats., it can hear an appeal of a decision of the administrator authorizing the transfer pursuant to §Pers 15.02, Wis. Adm. Code. The action of the appointing authority in deciding to fill the new position by transfer and/or to propose to the administrator that the appellant be transferred into the new position are not actions that are appealable to the Commission. Ford v. DHSS & DP, 82-243-PC, 83-0011-PC, 83-0020-PC, 6/9/83
To the extent that seniority, back pay and fringe benefit decisions relating to the accretion of the appellant into state service fall within the scope of §230.15(l), Stats., they are reviewable by the Commission. Smith v. DILHR & DP, 81-412-PC, 83-0001-PC, 6/9/83
The Commission has jurisdiction over the decision of the administrator refusing to process the appellant's reclassification request without a position description agreed to by the appellant and his supervisor, but its inquiry on such an appeal must be limited to whether that decision was correct and cannot reach the substantive question of the most proper classification of appellant's position, which the administrator did not reach. Corning v. DER & DP, 82-185-PC, 10/27/82
In an appeal involving alleged failure by the appointing authority and the administrator to restore the appellant to his former status following a downward reallocation pursuant to §Pers 5.03(3)(h), Wis. Adm. Code, the matter is cognizable under §230.44(l)(a), Stats., with respect to the administrator, inasmuch as a failure or refusal to act can be considered to be a constructive decision, and §Pers 5.03(3)(h) does not impose the prerequisite that the employe make application for assistance in restoration to a commensurate position. Wing v. UW & DP, 79-148, 173-PC, 10/4/82
The Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal of a decision of the administrator pursuant to §Pers 24.06, Wis. Adm. Code, on an alleged violation of the Code of Ethics. Steinicke v. UW & DP, 82-76-PC, 9/23/82
As a general matter, the administrator's decisions as to eligibility for accretion under §230.15(l), Stats., constitute a personnel decision of the administrator. However, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review a decision by some agency other than DP to require a qualifying examination to be used as a screening device prior to an accretion decision by the administrator, where the administrator's role was limited to supplying the exam and administering and scoring it. Also, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over an alleged failure by the administrator to create an exceptional employment list where the administrator's actual role was limited to determining eligibility of individuals for accretion under §230.15(l), Stats., and it would have been improper for the administrator to have created an additional list of eligibles for accretion beyond those identified by DILHR. Once the accretion process was completed and positions remained vacant, the administrator was effectively preempted from making a decision to create an exceptional employment list due to the decision by DILHR to fill the remaining vacancies by transfer and voluntary demotion rather than by open recruitment. Smith & Berry v. DILHR & DP, 81-412,415-PC, 8/5/82
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal arising from alleged reassignments of duties and responsibilities of appellant's position. The administrator of the Division of Personnel had determined that there had been no changes in the duties and responsibilities that would affect the position's classification and decided that no further action would be taken. The legal basis for the administrator's inquiry was solely in connection with the question of whether the position was correctly classified. Because the appellant sought review of the alleged reassignment of duties and not of the proper classification of her position, the Commission lacked jurisdiction. Roberts v. DHSS & DP, 81-44-PC, 7/27/81
The Commission has jurisdiction over a selection process conducted pursuant to §230.21(2), Stats. (critical recruitment) as a decision of the administrator or on a delegated basis pursuant to §230.44(l)(a) or (b), Stats. Furthermore, even though there is no formal evaluation process, there is a "certification" and hence the potential for post-certification jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(l)(d), Stats. Anderson v. UW & DP, 80-318-PC, 7/21/81
The Commission lacks the authority to review a constructive denial of a request to establish a "preventative mechanism" to ensure that a pay compression between supervisors and the therapists they supervise did not reoccur. Marshall et al. v. DP & DHSS, 79-136, 169-PC, 3/6/81
The Commission lacks jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(a) or (b) over an appeal of transactions caused by or affected by changes in the compensation plan that were made by the director prior to the effective date of §230.12, Stats., and were potentially attributable to the administrator, the director's successor. Lustig et al. v. DILHR et al, 78-277-PC, etc., 1/12/81
The failure of the administrator to act on or decide a purported "appeal" regarding the alleged removal of duties and responsibilities is not a "personnel decision" of the administrator appealable pursuant to §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Roberts v. DHSS, 80-264-PC, 80-282-PC, 11/4/80
Where the administrator reviewed the merits of an agency action at the request of the appellant, the administrator's decision is appealable pursuant to §230.44(l)(a), Stats., as against the claim that the initial appeal to the administrator was misdirected. Kaeske v. DHSS & DP, 78-18-PC, 11/22/79
The authority to void a Career Executive register is vested in the director, bureau of personnel (now administrator) and hence the Commission has jurisdiction of an appeal from such an action. Greene v. DOA & DP, 76-264, 10/27/78
103.19 Determination of legality of rule
The Commission has the authority to consider the validity of an administrative rule, providing for expanded certification when necessary to achieve a balanced work force, within the context of an appeal filed under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., which provides for appeal of a "personnel action after certification which is related to the hiring process in the classified service and which is alleged to be illegal," citing Sewerage Commission of Milwaukee v. DNR, 102 Wis. 2d 613 (1981). Paul v. DHSS & DMRS, 82-PC-ER-69, 82-156-PC, 10/11/84
The Commission has the implied authority to conclude that an administrative rule is in conflict with a statute. Paul v. DHSS, 81-323-PC, 10/19/83
The Commission has the authority to determine whether a rule is in conflict with a statute where the Commission is reviewing a determination by an appointing authority that is based upon administrative rules regarding the accrual of vacation and sick time during an absence due to a hazardous duty injury. Loeffler v. DHSS, 81-376-PC, 12/17/81
A code of ethics constituting an administrative rule but not having been developed and promulgated pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of ch. 227, Stats., is invalid and void. Kraus & Kraus v. DHSS, 78-268-PC, 79-63-PC, 12/4/79
103.20 Post-certification actions under §230.44(1)(d), Stats., including selection decisions
Section 230.44(1)(d), Stats., does not extend to every personnel action taken after an employe has been hired. Arenz et al. v. DOT & DER, 98-0073-PC, etc., 2/10/99
The decision to reallocate appellants' positions to a particular classification level rather than to another classification level was a decision made by the secretary of the Department of Employment Relations (or delegated by the secretary) pursuant to §230.09(2)(a), Stats., rather than a decision by an appointing authority that relates to the hiring process. Appellants' motion to supplement the issue for hearing to include a review of the reallocation decisions on an "abuse of discretion" standard was denied. Arenz et al. v. DOT & DER, 98-0073-PC, etc., 2/10/99
Decisions made regarding the scope of posting for a vacancy are made prior to certification and are not cognizable under §230.44(1)(d), Stats. Ernst v. DATCP, 97-0152-PC, 7/1/98
The Commission’s authority under §230.44(1)(d), Stats., to hear appeals of appointment decisions extends only to decisions made by the hiring authority. Morvak v. DOT & DMRS, 97-0020-PC, 6/19/97
The reassignment of appellant, a supervisor, from the security unit at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics to the Oakhill Correctional Institution is not a personnel action "after certification which is related to the hiring process." Asche v. DOC, 90-0159-PC, 5/21/97
Actions of the appellant’s employing agency to deny appellant’s request for an exemption to the agency’s employe fraternization policy and to remove appellant’s name from an inmate’s visitation list had no relationship to the process of hiring the appellant but were solely related to appellant’s contacts with a particular inmate during the period of time appellant was employed by respondent. Greuel v. DOC, 96-0135-PC, 1/16/97
In reviewing the respondent's decision to move the appellant from one position to another, with jurisdiction under §230.44(1)(d), Stats., the Commission could not address the management decisions that preceded the personnel transaction, i.e. the decision to create the position. Kelley v. DILHR, 93-0208-PC, 3/16/95
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear appellant's claim that he was underpaid upon his return to classified service when he exercised his restoration rights under §230.33(1), Stats. Dusso v. DER & DRL, 94-0490-PC, 12/22/94
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal which contests the denial of training. Completion of the training was a prerequisite for eligibility for promotional interviews. Lentz v. UW & DER, 93-0217-PC, 9/9/94
A request for waiver of final 2 months of 12-month probationary period, allegations relating to accuracy of probationary performance evaluations, and decision not to provide an exit interview were not "related to the hiring process" within the meaning of §230.44(1)(d), Stats. Duran v. DOC, 94-0035-PC, 6/21/94
The assignment of an employe from one position in one class to another position in the same class is a transfer, not a demotion. Although it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under §230.44(1)(c), the Commission had jurisdiction over the matter under §230.44(1)(d) to the extent the appeal challenged the transfer as being illegal or an abuse of discretion. Kelley v. DILHR, 93-0208-PC, 2/23/94
The phrase "after certification" in §230.44(1)(d), refers to a point in the hiring process and also delineates the DMRS administrator's legal authority in the selection process from that of the appointing authority, citing Wing v. DER, 84-0084-PC, 4/3/85, and Seep v. DHSS, 83-0032-PC, 93-0017-PC-ER, 10/10/84. Kelley v. DILHR, 93-0208-PC, 2/23/94
The Commission's jurisdiction over an issue relating to the impact of ongoing collective bargaining on wages to be paid in the future (after possible reinstatement) is superseded by action of §111.93(3), Stats. However, pay upon reinstatement is subject to a certain amount of discretion on the part of the appointing authority. The decision is not governed by the applicable collective bargaining agreement and, as a result, the Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(1)(d), Stats., is not precluded by operation of §111.93(3), Stats. Cross-Madsen et al. v. UW & DER 92-0828-PC, 7/30/93
The Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal from an alleged adverse employment reference from appellant's supervisor given for a vacant position within the same agency. Seay v. DER & UW-Madison, 89-0082-PC-ER, 11/19/92; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 93-CV-1247, 3/3/95; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 95-0747, 2/19/96
There was no jurisdictional basis on which the Commission could review the appellant's pay level during the period of an alleged acting assignment where there was no certification associated with filling the acting assignment. Bauer v. DATCP & DER, 91-0128-PC, 4/1/92
The hiring process which resulted in appellant's appointment to a vacant position cannot serve as a basis for review of the appellant's rate of pay while serving in his previous position in another agency. Cestkowski v. DOC, 90-0403-PC, 2/8/91
Not all decisions "related to the hiring process" are rendered prior to or contemporaneous with the appointment decision and the failure of the appointing authority to render related decisions at that time should not operate to deprive an employe of his or her right of appeal. Coulter v. DOC, 90-0355-PC, 1/24/91
Where appellant alleged that duties were added to a position "after it was posted in house, after the test and after the interview list was received," the action of adding duties was not related to the hiring process where there was no allegation that the action was taken in order to avoid having to consider one or more candidates. The appeal was dismissed. Metzig v. DHSS, 90-0383-PC, 1/24/91
The Commission's jurisdiction under §230.44(1)(d), Stats., does not extend to pre-certification decisions made by the appointing authority. Therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction over a decision to exclude from the selection process those persons who sought to demote or transfer into a position where that decision was made one month before the certification list was prepared. Schmidt v. DHSS, 89-0079-PC, 4/5/90
When all of the other elements of §230.44(1)(d), Stats., are present, a decision to interview only off the established register which had the effect of denying the appellant's transfer request, is an appealable transaction. Because there was a dispute of fact as to whether the decision involved occurred before or after certification, the respondent's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice so that an evidentiary hearing could be scheduled, if necessary, for the resolution of the factual dispute. Schmidt v. DHSS, 88-0131-PC, 89-0079-PC, 11/15/89
Appellant's allegation that respondent's action in allowing another employe to transfer from one position to another violated the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement was precluded by §111.93(3), Stats. However, the appellant was permitted to pursue her allegation that the respondent abused its discretion in failing to have informed the appellant of the possibility of transfer at the time she was being considered to fill the position from which the other employe later transferred. Cordle v. DATCP, 89-0037-PC, 8/24/89
The actions of granting an employe a certain status which would make the employe eligible for consideration in filling a position are actions which are simultaneous to, or which precede, the certification stage of any appointment process and are not post-certification actions. Prior to its layoff analysis, the appointing authority had tacitly decided that the appellant was not eligible to even be considered for appointment to another position. In addition, the appellant failed to identify any vacancies for which the respondent failed to consider her. Jensen v. UW, 88-0077-PC, 12/14/88
Even though the appellant was technically employed by respondent for one day before a decision was reached that he did not meet the physical exam requirements, the decision in question was in the nature of a nonselection decision rather than a decision to terminate for poor performance. Therefore, the jurisdictional basis falls within §230.44(1)(d), Stats., and the case may be distinguished from Board of Regents v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 103 Wis. 2d 545, 309 N.W. 2d 366 (Ct. of App., 1981). Respondent made no argument that the appellant was terminated while on probation nor was there any documentary evidence that the appellant received notice as would have been required under §ER-Pers 13.08(2), Wis. Adm. Code. Lauri v. DHSS, 87-0175-PC, 11/3/88
The Commission has jurisdiction over respondent's decision establishing appellant's rate of pay upon appointment to a vacancy. However, jurisdiction did not extend to the action setting appellant's rate of pay upon completion of her probationary period. Meschefske v. DHSS, 88-0057-PC, 7/13/88
Respondent's decision as to whether to fill a position by transfer or promotion, and in the latter case whether to request in-service competition or open recruitment is a direct, undelegated power which is not appealable per se to the Commission. However, to the extent the appellant was contending that the decision to request further certification after appellant's initial certification and interview was a means to the end of not appointing him to the position, the action of failing or refusing to hire the appellant falls within §230.44(1)(d), Stats., and evidence tending to show respondent requested an additional, or a particular type of certification for the purpose of undermining appellant's chances for the appointment apparently would be relevant to the issue of whether the decision not to appoint the appellant was illegal or an abuse of discretion. Ransom v. UW-Milwaukee, 87-0125-PC, 7/13/88
Evidence relating to the decisions to request or use the register from a Fiscal Supervisor 1 position to fill an Administrative Assistant 5 - Supervisor (Finance Manager) position where the evidence is relevant to the issue raised by an appeal under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., would be admissible in the hearing of that appeal, even though a direct appeal of the decision to use the FS 1 register was untimely. Allen v. DHSS & DMRS, 88-0020-PC, 6/29/88
A limited term appointment is not appealable under §230.44(l)(d), Stats. Barker v. UW, 88-0031-PC, 4/20/88
The Commission had jurisdiction over an appeal of a non-selection decision brought by a person whose name was not on the "official" list of certified candidates, where the respondent had nevertheless considered appellant for the appointment based on his inclusion on an "unofficial" list. Respondent's Bureau of Personnel had sanctioned the use of such "unofficial" lists in the past. Even absent certification of the appellant for the position, as long as he was considered for the position after the generation of a certification list, the Commission has jurisdiction based on its rulings in Lundeen v. DOA, 79-208-PC, 6/3/81, and Seep v. DHSS, 83-0032-PC, 7/7/83. Pfeifer v. DILHR, 86-0149-PC-ER, 86-0201-PC, 12/17/87
The Commission lacked the authority to review a decision by DMRS establishing the scope of recruitment where DMRS had never been identified as a party and the issue for hearing did not identify any pre-certification decision. Jensen v. UW-Milwaukee, 86-0144-PC, 11/4/87
The Commission has jurisdiction over an appeal of the appointing authority's decision fixing the appellant's starting rate of pay, citing Taddey v. DHSS, 86-0156-PC (1987), despite respondent's contentions that administrative rule required it to use the minimum hourly rate for the particular pay range and that the minimum hourly rate was not determined by the respondent. Siebers v. DHSS, 87-0028-PC, 9/10/87
DMRS was dismissed as a party in an appeal of a selection/appointment decision given the language of §230.06(l)(b), Stats., which grants the appointing authority exclusive authority as to such decisions. Royston v. DVA & DMRS, 86-0222-PC, 6/24/87
The Commission has jurisdiction to review the decision establishing appellant's starting salary. Taddey v. DHSS, 86-0156-PC, 6/11/87
Respondent's denial of a step increase upon completion of the appellant's non-original probation is not a personnel action "related to the hiring process", citing Board of Regents v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 103 Wis 2d 545 (Ct. of App., 1981). Ruck v. DNR, 86-0007-PC, 12/29/86
Where respondent DPI received notice of appellant's interest in a vacant position after the agency had received a certification for it but before an appointment had been made., appellant's appeal met the jurisdictional requirements of §230.44(i)(d), Stats., and the case was not dismissed upon DPI's assertion that it was clear that its exercise of discretion was not abusive, particularly where not all the relevant facts were undisputed. Wing v. DPI & DER, 85-0013-PC, 9/20/85
The phrase "after certification" in §230.44(l)(d), Stats., refers to a certain segment of the appointment process and does not require an actual certification. The intent is to permit, inter alia, appeals of all appointment decisions rather than just those where an actual certification by the administrator preceded the selection decision. The Commission distinguished or overruled a number of related prior decisions, and concluded that it had the authority to review the appointing authority's decision not to select the appellant from among a list of persons seeking transfer, reinstatement and demotion to a vacant position. No examination had been given so no eligibles had been certified. Wing v. DER, 84-0084-PC, 4/3/85
The Commission lacks jurisdiction to review a decision setting appellant's salary upon a voluntary demotion. McCallum v. DOT, 85-0036-PC, 6/18/85
The Commission has the authority to consider the validity of an administrative rule, providing for expanded certification when necessary to achieve a balanced work force, within the context of an appeal filed under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., which provides for appeal of a 11personnel action after certification which is related to the hiring process in the classified service and which is alleged to be illegal," citing Sewerage Commission of Milwaukee v. DNR, 102 Wis. 2d 613 (1981). Paul v. DHSS & DMRS, 82-PC-ER-69, 82-156-PC, 10/11/84
A decision by the appointing authority on reinstatement is a "personnel action", is "related to the hiring process in the classified it service, and is "after certification" in the sense that certification refers to a point in the staffing process. In addition, the denial of appellant's reinstatement occurred after the certification for the position in question and the statute does not require that the appellant be actually certified. Seep v. DHSS, 83-0032-PC & 83-0017-PC-ER, 10/10/84; affirmed in part, reversed in part by Racine County Circuit Court, Seep v. State Pers. Comm., 84-CV-1705, 84-CV-1920, 6/20/85; affirmed in part, reversed in part by Court of Appeals District 11, 140 Wis. 2d 31, 5/6/87; [Note: the effect of the Court of Appeals decision was to affirm the Commission's decision in all respects]
The Commission has the authority to review respondent's failure or refusal to reinstate the appellant following her request of April 14, 1983, where respondent’s first response thereto was to notify the appellant that she could take the exam required of all applicants. Frank v. DHSS, 83-0173-PC, 9/28/84
The Commission found jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., over appellant's allegation that DER effectively decertified the appellant by advising an agency to ignore the appellant's name while selecting a candidate from a certification list that included the appellant. Pflugrad v. DER, DHSS & BVTAE, 83-0176-PC, 3/29/84
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over appellant's allegation that respondent BVTAE had "continually sabotaged the [appellant's] efforts to seek employment in the public and private sectors" where there was no indication that the events complained of constituted "personnel actions" as required by §230.44(i)(d), Stats., rather than merely responses to requests for recommendation or for summaries of the appellant's employment record. Pflugrad v. DER, DHSS & BVTAE, 83-0176-PC, 3/29/84
The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(i)(d), Stats. over the denial of a reinstatement following a certification, as against the argument that a statutory prerequisite is that the appellant have been among those certified. Seep v. DHSS, 83-0032-PC, 7/7/83
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a denial of permissive reinstatement where there was no certification of a list of eligibles for the vacancy in question. The fact that the appellant was at some previous time hired to fill a different position, but at the same classification, does not mean that the appellant was certified for the specific vacancy that was the subject of the appeal. Scurlock v. DOJ & DILHR, 82-8-PC, 7/26/82
The Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the denial of an application for a health insurance policy, as against the argument that this was cognizable as a personnel action after certification which is "related" to the hiring process in the classified service (§230.44(l)(d), Stats.) The Commission determined that the decision to hire the appellant and the decision to deny her application for medical insurance were not "related". Cleasby v. DOT, 82-227-PC, 12/29/82
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision to reduce the appellant's rate of pay upon inter-departmental transfer under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., where no names were certified for the position. Starczynski & Mayfield v. DOA, 81-275,276-PC, 12/3/81 (Note: the precedential value of this decision was limited by Seep v. DHSS, 88-0032-PC (7/7/83), above.)
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal contesting both the decision to fill a position by transfer rather than promotion and the timing of the effective date of the transaction, as these decisions are within the purview of the appointing authority and hence not appealable pursuant to §§230.44(l)(a) or (b), Stats., and are not appealable under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., because they are not a personnel action after certification which is related to the hiring process in the classified service. Miller v. DHSS, 81-137-PC, 10/2/81
The Commission has jurisdiction over a selection process conducted pursuant to §230.21(2), Stats. (critical recruitment) as a decision of the administrator or on a delegated basis pursuant to §230.44(l)(a) or (b), Stats. (1981) Furthermore, even though there is no formal evaluation process, there is a "certification" and hence the potential for post-certification jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(i)(d), Stats. Anderson v. UW & DP, 80-318-PC, 7/21/81
The Commission lacks jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., to decide whether the failure to extend a temporary intergovernmental interchange agreement (§230.047, Stats.) was an illegal act or an abuse of discretion. Anderson v. DILHR, 79-320-PC, 79-PC-ER-173, 7/2/81; affirmed and remanded for additional findings on issue of mitigation of damages by Dane County Circuit Court, DILHR v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 81-CV-4078, 6/7/82
The reference in §230.44(l)(d), Stats., to an action "after certification" does not require that the appellant have been certified as a precondition to jurisdiction. Lundeen v. DOA, 79-208-PC, 6/3/81
Where the appellant requested and was eligible for reinstatement, the respondent's election not to reinstate him to a vacant position was equivalent to a denial of reinstatement or appointment occurring after certification, when the actual appointment was made. Lundeen v. DOA, 79-208-PC, 6/3/81
Where the appellant was certified for a position and subsequently was offered, through oversight, an appointment to a different position which was filled by a transfer and for which there never was a certification, the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the appeal relating to the second position, since there was no post-certification personnel transaction pursuant to §230.44(l)(d), Stats. Ziemke v. DHSS, 80-390-PC, 4/23/81
The Commission lacks jurisdiction under §230.44(l)(d), Stats., of an appeal concerning employes being required to serve essentially continual probationary periods due to successive promotions, because the appeal did not and could not allege illegal action or an abuse of discretion since the probationary periods complained of are mandated by statute. Anderson v. DATCP, 80-175-PC, 4/9/81
The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(l)(d), Stats., over an appeal alleging that the appointing authority failed to notify the administrator pursuant to §230.25(2), Stats., of the failure to fill a position after certification, as this is a post-certification personnel action relating to the hiring process. Parisi v. UW, 80-289-PC, 1/13/81
There is no statutory basis for a direct appeal to the Commission of the refusal of an agency to hire someone as a limited term employe, as §230.44(l)(d), Stats., does not apply because there is no certification for a limited term vacancy. Kawczynski v. DOT, 80-181-PC, 11/4/80
The determination of salary and the assignment of duties following a transfer are not "personnel actions after certification... related to the hiring process in the classified service" and hence the Commission lacks jurisdiction pursuant to §230.44(l)(d), Stats., over such a transaction. Jacobson v. LIRC & DILHR, 78-192-PC, 9/12/80
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of actions taken by the personnel board in conducting a selection process pursuant to §15.173(l)(b), Stats. for the unclassified position of administrator of the Division of Personnel, as against the argument that there is implied power to hear the appeal under §230.44(l)(a), Stats. Knoll v. Pers. Bd., 79-103-PC, 10/12/79
The denial of permissive reinstatement is cognizable under §230.44(i)(d), Stats. Cihlar v. DHSS, 79-106-PC, 8/30/79
The Commission lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of an appointment to a position in the unclassified service; §230.44(l)(d), Stats., only applies to transactions in the classified service. Wing v. UW, 78-203-PC, 7/14/79
While this digest has been prepared by Personnel Commission staff for the convenience of interested persons, it should be remembered that the decisions themselves are the ultimate source of Commission precedent.