[Previous material] [Next material]
300 LAYOFFS/JOB ABANDONMENTS
301 Standard of judgment [see 501.02(2)]
301.03 The scope of the Commission’s inquiry
In an appeal of a layoff decision, the Commission denied respondent's motion to exclude evidence relating to appellant's argument that ostensible program decisions were in fact motivated by an intention to effectuate a layoff decision that would adversely affect the appellant, although the same program decisions may not be reviewed for the purpose of determining if they are defensible from purely a policy standpoint. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-0083-PC, 5/23/84
In reviewing a layoff decision, the Commission may examine what is ostensibly a (prior) program decision, not for the purpose of deciding whether the decision is defensible from a purely policy standpoint, but to determine whether it was a pretext for the underlying purpose of effectuating an adverse personnel action (such as a layoff) against a particular employe. In determining whether the layoff was "arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith", the Commission may also consider a letter that was dated several years prior to he layoff and issued by a division administrator and that arguably made a commitment regarding the security of appellant's position. Kuter v DILHR, 82-0083-PC, 5/23/84
On an appeal of a layoff, the Commission can consider only the question of whether there was just cause for the layoff, and pursuant to Weaver v. Wis. Pers. Board, 71 Wis. 2d 46, 52, 237 N.W. 2d 183 (1975), the employing agency sustains its burden of proof when it shows it has acted in accordance with administrative and statutory guidelines and the exercise of that authority has not been arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the laid off appellant alleged that the respondent over the course of several years slowly eroded his duties and usurped his responsibilities, and the appellant argued that the "respondent should be forced to carry the burden of proof in justifying all of his actions affecting the appellant from the commencement of the respondent's term as Commissioner of Securities...." The Commission held that the language of the Weaver decision limited review of the layoff to the personnel decision itself and precluded review of the numerous decisions relative to the administration of the agency which may have affected the appellant's position during the period of years preceding the layoff. Oakley v. Comm. of Securities, 78-66-PC, 4/19/79
302.005 Definition
A permanent reduction of a position's hours from 75% of full time to 50% of full time does not constitute a layoff. Davis v. ECB, 91-0214-PC, 5/14/92
302.01 Effective date of the action
Where in a layoff notice to the appellant dated January 10, 1991, the respondent incorrectly referred to an effective date of February 1, 1990, instead of February 1, 1991, and the appellant clearly understood that the effective date of the layoff was to be February 1, 1991, the appellant received the requisite 15 day notice of the layoff. Keller v. UW, 91-0006-PC, 11/14/91
302.04 Least efficient and effective
There was just cause for appellant's layoff as the second least senior stenographic reporter, where the least senior reporter and the appellant were monitored for a period of time as to their productivity and based on the production statistics, respondent decided to exempt the least senior reporter from layoff. Reit v. WERC, 81-128-PC, 6/25/82; affirmed by Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Reit v. State Pers. Comm., 589-670, 12/15/82
302.05 For fiscal reasons
Where one set of duties had decreased and another set had increased while the funding for the unit remained the same, the lack of funds necessitated the reduction of the work force. Attoe v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 91 CV 3587, 5/12/92
The "lack of funds" language of §230.34(2), Stats., was held to be satisfied by a showing that the change in financial condition of the UW Hospitals and Clinics would require substantial reductions in the rate of growth of expenditures due to projected reductions in the rate of growth of revenue. Behm v. UW, 93-0212-PC, 3/31/94
Respondent's layoff decision was upheld as neither arbitrary nor capricious where the federal government substantially cut its funding which had previously constituted 90-100% of the program funds. Appellant's layoff was necessary to conform with the reduced budget. Respondent was not estopped, due to a letter written three years earlier which allowed the appellant to retain his title of supervisor, from laying off the appellant. The letter was not meant to immunize the appellant from future layoffs. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-83-PC, 7/15/85; rev'd by Fond du Lac County Circuit Court, Kuter v. State Pers. Comm., 85-CV-636, 10/1/86; rev'd by Court of Appeals District 11, 86-1950, 5/20/87.
302.10 Reinstatement and retention rights
Where a laid off employe was recalled to a position that was in a different classification for which it was determined she was not qualified, and which required considerable travel which would have required her to be away from her children, of whom she had sole care, it was held not to be a reasonable offer of re-employment. (Note: this case was decided by the Commission prior to the amendment to §Pers. 22.09, Wis. Adm. Code, which was effective March 1, 1981.) McClain v. Comm. of Insurance, 79-325-PC, 7/25/80; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Commissioner of Insurance v. State Pers. Comm., 80-CV-5649, 4/4/81
302.11 Layoff versus other means
The civil service code does not require that an employe be laid off when there is a reduction in the work force, and the employer did not err in transferring the appellant rather than subjecting her to layoff. Sheda v. State (Pers. Board), Dane County Circuit Court, 158-117, 11/16/78
Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the administrative code when it failed to inform appellant of demotion opportunities. The Commission rejected respondent's contention that certain unfilled positions did not comprise a "vacancy" within the meaning of the demotion in lieu of layoff provisions, §ER-Pers 22.08(2), Wis. Adm. Code. The existence of a vacancy is not determined by the existence of a certification request. Respondent had the authority to initiate an action to fill the positions and the authority to make a permanent appointment, even though such authority was not exercised. The record indicated that the Department of Employment Relations would have approved a layoff plan which offered appellant employment at the positions in question and respondent had not met its burden of establishing that appellant was unqualified to perform the duties of the positions. Respondent also failed to inform appellant of another demotion opportunity that was 7 pay ranges lower than the appellant's existing position. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
One purpose of the administrative code chapter covering layoffs is to protect employe rights in layoff situations and this purpose is not served where the employing unit has a continued need for service and the position is funded and vacant or by other unilateral action or nonaction of the employing unit which declares certain positions unavailable to employes affected by layoff. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
Transfers in lieu of layoff offered under §ER-Pers 22.08(1), Wis. Adm. Code, must meet the reasonable offer criteria of §ER-Pers 22.09. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
An offer to transfer the appellant to a position 241 miles away from appellant's original work site was not a "reasonable offer" of work as defined in §ER-Pers 22.09, Wis. Adm. Code. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
Where none of the circumstances for instituting a layoff under §230.34(2), Stats., were present and the appellant's job was reviewed to determine where it best fit within the state classification plan, the decision to regrade the appellant (after reallocating his position to a lower classification) rather than effectuating a lay off was correct. Olson v. DER, 87-0169-PC, 3/21/90
There was no requirement to prepare and use a formal layoff plan as set forth in ch. Pers 22, Wis. Adm. Code, where the appointing authority was able to effect the personnel reductions necessitated by the merger of two highway districts by retirements, voluntary demotions, and transfers. Harley v. DOT & DP, 80-77-PC, 11/7/80
302.12 Arbitrary and capricious action
A "rational basis" for the decision to eliminate appellant's position was demonstrated through respondent's showing that it was not necessary or efficient to have two supervisory positions supervising a unit of eight technicians, and that the duties of appellant's position could more easily be assumed by other positions in the unit than the duties of the other supervisory position. When confronted with reduced revenue growth, an employer has not just the prerogative, but the obligation, to make choices among competing priorities; and program changes, necessitated by advances in technology, evolving client and program needs, and fluctuations in financial and other resources, are not required to be subordinate to maintaining the status quo or to retaining existing employees. Behm v. UW, 93-0212-PC, 3/31/94
Appellant's lay off from her Education Services Intern - Supervisor position was the result of a rational process stemming from a decision to computerize a records functions and was not arbitrary and capricious. Smalley v. UW-Eau Claire, 86-0128-PC, 4/29/87
Respondent's layoff decision was upheld as neither arbitrary nor capricious where the federal government substantially cut its funding which had previously constituted 90-100% of the program funds. Appellant's layoff was necessary to conform with the reduced budget. Respondent was not estopped, due to a letter written three years earlier which allowed the appellant to retain his title of supervisor, from laying off the appellant. The letter was not meant to immunize the appellant from future layoffs. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-83-PC, 7/15/85; rev'd by Fond du Lac County Circuit Court, Kuter v. State Pers. Comm., 85-CV-636, 10/1/86; rev'd by Court of Appeals District 11, 86-1950, 5/20/87.
In an appeal of a layoff decision, the Commission denied respondent's motion to exclude evidence of a written commitment made by appellant's superior that the office organizational structure would remain the same as long as the appellant wished to remain in the office. Such evidence relates to a determination of whether respondent's layoff decision was arbitrary and capricious especially in light of respondent's apparent ability to exempt appellant from layoff. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-0083-PC, 5/23/84
Respondent's decision to exempt two persons other than the appellants for special skills was upheld where the recommendation was made by the deputy administrator and was based upon the most recent performance evaluation even though the appellant's direct supervisor would have exempted one of the appellants first and where the deputy administrator and appellant's supervisor had approximately the same number of years of service with the agency. Newberry & Eft v. DHSS, 82-98, 100-PC, 8/17/83
Respondent's decision to exempt from layoff a less senior female in the same classification as the appellant was held to be arbitrary and capricious where the only evidence of respondent considering seniority, special or superior skills, affirmative action or other factors (§Pers 22.035, Wis. Adm. Code) in making its layoff decision was that it applied the affirmative action exemption after determining that the failure to do so would reduce the number of females below the "parity" figure. The Commission also pointed out a number of inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the manner in which the respondent derived its parity figures and how it applied those figures. Martin v. Transportation Commission, 80-366-PC, 3/21/83
There was just cause for the appellant's layoff where the decision to exempt pursuant to §Pers 22.06(2), Wis. Adm. Code, someone other than the appellant was not arbitrary and capricious as the exempted employe was handicapped and had made major productivity improvements in her office since her appointment. Manthei v. DILHR, 81-394-PC, 10/14/82
The layoff was held to constitute arbitrary and capricious action as set forth in Weaver v. Pers. Bd., 71 Wis 2d 46 (1976), and therefore without just cause, where the appellant was the only remaining qualified person on the certification for the position in question a month prior to his layoff, and the agency head had issued an order that no one else could be appointed to the position other than appellant without his specific approval. Bjorklund v. DHSS, 79-327-PC, 2/13/81
302.13 Compliance with rules and statutes
Section 230.34(2)(a), Stats., indicates that management has the prerogative to decide which factors inform the reduction of a workforce; it does not prohibit laying off a person in a position because that position's expertise is less in demand than others. Attoe v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 91 CV 3587, 5/12/92
Petitioner, who was facing a layoff and had no transfer opportunities, was entitled to a demotion to the highest level position available via displacement. The reference in §ER-Pers 22.09(2)(b), Wis. Adm. Code, to "highest level position" refers to other criteria as well as to the salary range. An Agricultural Supervisor 5 position, rather than a Veterinarian 3 position, was considered to be the highest level position where it had a higher level reporting relationship, was supervisory and non-union and had a higher salary potential because the pay scale was controlled by the merit of the employe rather than by the union. Kumrah v. Wis. Pers. Comm. & DATCP, Brown County Circuit Court, 88-CV-1543, 3/14/89; affirmed by Court of Appeals, 89-0825, 11/21/89
Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the administrative code when it failed to inform appellant of demotion opportunities. The Commission rejected respondent's contention that certain unfilled positions did not comprise a "vacancy" within the meaning of the demotion in lieu of layoff provisions, §ER-Pers 22.08(2), Wis. Adm. Code. The existence of a vacancy is not determined by the existence of a certification request. Respondent had the authority to initiate an action to fill the positions and the authority to make a permanent appointment, even though such authority was not exercised. The record indicated that the Department of Employment Relations would have approved a layoff plan which offered appellant employment at the positions in question and respondent had not met its burden of establishing that appellant was unqualified to perform the duties of the positions. Respondent also failed to inform appellant of another demotion opportunity that was 7 pay ranges lower than the appellant's existing position. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
One purpose of the administrative code chapter covering layoffs is to protect employe rights in layoff situations and this purpose is not served where the employing unit has a continued need for service and the position is funded and vacant or by other unilateral action or nonaction of the employing unit which declares certain positions unavailable to employes affected by layoff. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
The layoff plan was "comprehensive" within the meaning of §ER-Pers 22.05, where the rationale, though brief, accurately and completely represented management's reasons for and goals of the subject organizational change. Keller v. UW, 91-0006-PC, 11/14/91
The elimination of a single position may qualify as a "material change in duties or organization" within the meaning of §230.34(2). Keller v. UW, 91-0006-PC, 11/14/91
The elimination of a position and the layoff of the position incumbent as the result of a reorganization falls squarely within the scope of those actions authorized by §230.34(2), comparing the Commission's decision in Givens v. DILHR, 87-0039-PC, 3/10/88. Attoe v. UW, 90-0388-PC, 8/16/91; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Attoe v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 91 CV 3587, 5/12/92
A "reduction in force" must be necessary before a layoff action may be effected by an appointing authority and if an agency has a vacant, authorized, funded position in the classification to which an employe has exercised mandatory restoration rights, a reduction in force is not necessary. A position is "vacant" when the appointing authority has the authority to initiate an action to fill the position and the authority to make a permanent appointment to the position once such an action is initiated. Otherwise, an appointing authority could, simply by refraining from taking action to fill a position, defeat an employe's right to transfer or demote in lieu of layoff. Givens v. DILHR, 87-0039-PC, 3/10/88; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, DILHR v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 88-CV-2029, 1/6/89
Respondent violated the 15 day notice requirement for layoffs where appellant received the notice on July 21 and the effective date of the layoff was July 31. The Commission rejected the layoff decision where appellant's displacement rights were also violated. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
In contrast to the layoff plan, which must be approved by the Administrator, the written layoff notice need not be approved by the Administrator. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
Respondent sought and obtained the requisite approval of its layoff plan where it obtained a letter on the administrator's stationery which bore a signature which could only be assumed to be that of the administrator or someone authorized to sign on his behalf and which stated that the plan was approved. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
Any defect in the original layoff letter received March 18, 1982, in failing to provide 15 days notice of an April 2nd layoff was cured by a subsequent layoff letter of March 25th changing the effective date to April 16th. Newberry & Eft v. DHSS, 82-98, 100-PC, 8/17/83
Where the respondent provided only 14 days notice of the layoff, as opposed to the 15 days mandated by §Pers 22.07, Wis. Adm. Code, it failed to establish just cause for the layoff. With respect to a remedy, complete rejection of the action and full reinstatement of the appellant was considered more extensive than necessary to remedy the relatively minor procedural error which had not been shown to have prejudiced the appellant, and therefore the action would be modified by changing its effective date by one day. Thomas v. UW, 81-332-PC, 3/25/82
The layoff was held to have been violative of §Pers 22.09, Wis. Adm. Code, and hence without just cause, where the respondent did not obtain the administrator's approval of the layoff plan until two weeks after notifying the appellant of his impending layoff. Bjorklund v. DHSS, 79-327-PC, 2/13/81
Where the appellant was laid off due to the exercise of mandatory reinstatement rights by another employe, and where the agency lacked the funds or vacant positions to have retained both employes, the result is a "reduction in force due to ... lack of ... funds" pursuant to §230.34(2), stats., and this constituted compliance with the applicable rules and statutes and was not illegal nor an arbitrary and capricious action. Mukamal v. WERC, 79-16-PC, 10/2/81
Laying to one side the question of whether the Commission has jurisdiction over the terms of any employment contract (non-collective bargaining) between the appellant and the state, the terms of state employment are spelled out in the statutes and tenure in state employment always must be subject to the possibility of layoff due to a reduction in force, and hence there could not have been a violation of any contract of employment by appellant's layoff. Mukamal v. WERC, 79-126-PC, 10/2/81
302.14 Payment of unused annual leave
Following the decision to layoff the appellant, it was not improper for the respondent to have paid him for his unused authorized annual leave. Bjorklund v. DHSS, 79-327-PC, 2/13/81
302.15 Bumping rights
Appellant, who was laid off from his position as an Administrative Assistant 3 (SRI-11) and had previously earned permanent status as an Education Services Intern (SRI-10), had no right to displace ("bump") into the Educational Services Assistant I (SR 1-11) classification in which he had never obtained permanent status in class. The Commission interpreted §Pers 22.08(2)(a), Wis. Adm. Code, which permits an employe identified for layoff to "induce the layoff process", inter alia, ". . . in a class or approved subtitle in a series having the same or lower pay range maximum within the employing unit, in which the employe has previously obtained permanent status in class..." to require the employe to have permanent status in the "class or approved subtitle" rather than merely in the same series. LaRose v. UW, 82-153-PC, 1/2/85
The exercise of displacement rights by an employe induces a layoff in those classifications into which the employe has a right to displace. Appellant's displacement rights were unlawfully denied where appellant notified the respondent that he wanted to exercise his displacement rights, where there were lower level positions within his classification within the employing unit and where respondent declined to effectuate the displacement because appellant was alleged to be unqualified. §Pers 22.08, Wis. Adm. Code. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
Appellant was not entitled to transfer or demote in lieu of layoff into positions in a different classification series assigned to a higher pay range and/or into positions in different classification series for which the appellant was not qualified. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
The right of an employe subjected to layoff to demote into certain other positions for which the employe is qualified "after the customary orientation provided for newly hired workers in such positions" does not require the employer to permit demotion by a person without the basic knowledge, training or experience that is necessary and to then provide the person with the basic knowledge, training or experience while on the job. §ER Pers 22.08, Wis. Adm. Code. Chandler v. DPI, 81-333-PC, 82-94-PC, 11/17/83
Pursuant to §230.34(2)(b), Stats., and §Pers 22.08(2)(a), Wis. Adm. Code, an employe involved in the layoff process does not have displacement rights to a classification in which he previously had obtained permanent status in class, if that classification is in a higher pay range than his classification at the time of layoff, and he does not have the right to displace to lower classifications within the AA series rather than being limited to displacement within the AA 5 classification, the only classification within the AA series in which he has obtained permanent status in class, inasmuch as the AA series is not a progression series as required by §Pers 22.08(2)(a), Wis. Adm. Code. Wiggins v. DOD, 82-246-PC, 7/21/83
303 Just cause standard applied, generally
Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of the administrative code when it failed to inform appellant of demotion opportunities. The Commission rejected respondent's contention that certain unfilled positions did not comprise a "vacancy" within the meaning of the demotion in lieu of layoff provisions, §ER-Pers 22.08(2), Wis. Adm. Code. The existence of a vacancy is not determined by the existence of a certification request. Respondent had the authority to initiate an action to fill the positions and the authority to make a permanent appointment, even though such authority was not exercised. The record indicated that the Department of Employment Relations would have approved a layoff plan which offered appellant employment at the positions in question and respondent had not met its burden of establishing that appellant was unqualified to perform the duties of the positions. Respondent also failed to inform appellant of another demotion opportunity that was 7 pay ranges lower than the appellant's existing position. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
One purpose of the administrative code chapter covering layoffs is to protect employe rights in layoff situations and this purpose is not served where the employing unit has a continued need for service and the position is funded and vacant or by other unilateral action or nonaction of the employing unit which declares certain positions unavailable to employes affected by layoff. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
Where respondent failed in its duty to provide correct information to appellant, appellant's decision to elect voluntary termination was a nullity. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
An offer to transfer the appellant to a position 241 miles away from appellant's original work site was not a "reasonable offer" of work as defined in §ER-Pers 22.09, Wis. Adm. Code. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
Just cause for layoff existed where there was a rational basis for management's decisions that the program goals of the employer could better be met by eliminating appellant's position than by eliminating certain other vacant positions or by delaying or not undertaking the addition of a new telecommunications system. Behm v. UW, 93-0212-PC, 3/31/94
Respondent's layoff action was upheld where respondent presented a rational basis for its decision by showing a factual basis for its conclusion that there was conflict and confusion resulting from the prior organizational structure and by showing that the elimination of one position was an obvious way to end the differences and achieve uniformity. Respondent was not required to show that its management decision was the best possible decision which could have been made under the circumstances, citing Newberry & Eft v. DHSS, 82-98, 100-PC, 8/17/83. The Commission rejected the appellant's contention that the layoff decision was effected in retaliation for appellant's grievance where the layoff plan had been prepared before the grievance was filed. Keller v. UW, 91-0006-PC, 11/14/91
The process followed by respondent in allocating finite resources was the result of sifting and winnowing and had a rational basis where the reorganization and redeployment of staff resources resulted from the ongoing examination by several management employees of a substantial volume of information regarding a variety of alternatives over a considerable length of time and there was a rational basis for creating a full-time permanent clerical position and assigning certain duties to other positions rather than to the appellant, even though the newly created clerical position had not been filled on a permanent basis as of the date of hearing. Attoe v. UW, 90-0388-PC, 8/16/91; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Attoe v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 91 CV 3587, 5/12/92
Respondent failed to show that its action of treating the appellant as having abandoned her position was authorized by applicable law and was not arbitrary and capricious where the respondent failed to comply with the requirements of §230.37(2), Stats., when it did not consider the option of placing the appellant in another position despite correspondence from the appellant's physician which raised the issue of providing a less arduous position and which could have provided a starting point for a dialogue between the appellant, the respondent and the physician regarding the availability of a less arduous position. Smith v. DHSS, 88-0063-PC, 2/9/89
Appellant's layoff from his position as a Purchasing Agent 4 Supervisor was based on a five year old concern about the efficiency of the purchasing department, the hiring of a new acting director of purchasing and the restructuring of the department. Respondent was not motivated to discipline appellant because of previous errors he had made. Roblee v. UW, 86-0032-PC, 4/15/87
Respondent's lay off decision was upheld as neither arbitrary nor capricious where the federal government substantially cut its funding which had previously constituted 90-100% of the program funds. Appellant's layoff was necessary to conform with the reduced budget. Respondent was not estopped, due to a letter written three years earlier which allowed the appellant to retain his title of supervisor, from laying off the appellant. The letter was not meant to immunize the appellant from future layoffs. Kuter v. DILHR, 82-83-PC, 7/15/85; rev'd by Fond du Lac County Circuit Court, Kuter v. State Pers. Comm., 85-CV-636, 10/1/86; rev'd by Court of Appeals District 11, 86-1950, 5/20/87.
There was just cause for the appellant's layoff where a section was removed from the bureau in question, resulting in a diminution in the duties and responsibilities of the appellant's supervisor and more supervision of the appellant's position, the consequential creation of two new positions at lower levels, and the demotions in lieu of layoff into those positions. Kleinschmidt v. DILHR, 81-395-PC, 6/4/82
Where an employe claims estoppel against his employer, and that he concluded that a job offer would lead to permanent employment, he should have been aware that there was a potential for layoff. Mukamal v. WERC, 79-126-PC, 10/2/81
310 Relief awarded
Where the respondent's action of treating the appellant as having abandoned her position was rejected, the appellant was not entitled to back pay where the appellant was unable to work and also failed to diligently seek employment during the relevant period. The appellant also was not entitled to be reinstated because she would only have continued on an unpaid medical leave until she reached the end of the maximum period of such leave, and her medical condition had not, in fact, changed during that entire period. Smith v. DHSS, 88-0063-PC, 3/19/92
Where the respondent provided only 14 days notice of the layoff, as opposed to the 15 days mandated by §Pers 22.07, Wis. Adm. Code, it failed to establish just cause for the layoff. With respect to a remedy, complete rejection of the action and full reinstatement of the appellant was considered more extensive than necessary to remedy the relatively minor procedural error which had not been shown to have prejudiced the appellant, and therefore the action would be modified by changing its effective date by one day. Thomas v. UW, 81-332-PC, 3/25/82
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.