[Previous material] [Next material]
403.12(4)(a) Main issue (see also 501.03 and 502.75)
The issue in an appeal arising from a decision to deny appellant's reclassification request was not the appropriateness of the appellant's existing classification, but whether he had established that his position should be classified at the requested level, citing Ellingson v. DNR & DER, 93-0057-PC, 5/28/98. Carpenter v. DOC & DER, 97-0115-PC, 11/18/98
Simply because the appellant has been assigned a responsibility which previously had been performed by a position at a different class level does not mean that the responsibility is properly identified at that different class level. Most positions are an amalgam of responsibilities which vary in strength when viewed from a classification perspective and it is those responsibilities which consume a majority of the position's time which determine its classification. The addition of higher level duties, while strengthening a position, does not justify the reclassification of a position unless and until the majority of the position's duties satisfy the requirements for classification at the higher level. Dunn-Herfel v. DOJ & DER, 94-0043-PC, 12/14/94
The fact that respondents did not telephone complainant's supervisor (who had left state service shortly after the classification survey was completed) as part of their review of the appellant's classification level does not serve as a basis for rejecting the reallocation decision. Orvis v. DOT & DER, 93-0119-PC, 11/3/94
The proceeding before the Commission is a hearing de novo in nature. The Commission is not limited to review of the information that was before respondent when the reallocation decision was made or re-evaluated, but considers all admissible relevant evidence at the hearing regardless of whether it had been available to respondent at the time of the initial decisional process. Appellant's position description was entitled to some weight but was not conclusive and the Commission considered appellant's additional evidence concerning his position. Bluhm v. DER, 92-0303-PC, 6/21/94
In an appeal of a reclassification, the proceeding before the Commission is a de novo review of the classification of the appellant's position and the procedure followed by respondents in reviewing the appellant's request for reclassification need not be evaluated in order to resolve the appeal. Klein v. UW & DER, 91-0208-PC, 2/8/93
The Commission reviews the actual duties and responsibilities assigned to a position, and factors related to a perceived bias on the part of the Department of Employment Relations against having jobs above a certain level in the classified service rather than academic staff, were not determinative. Duesterhoeft v. DER, 90-0343-PC, 12/17/92
"Examples of Work Performed" are not meant to be all inclusive of every position identified at a particular classification level. It is not unusual to find that the duties and responsibilities of a position might be identified in more than one specification as examples of work performed. Foris v. DHSS & DER, 90-0065-PC, 1/24/92
A classification specification must be read in its entirety as one document. Segmenting a specification and attempting to find specific words or phrases which can be matched to the duties and responsibilities assigned to a position is not dispositive of the appropriate classification of a position. The duties and responsibilities of the position and the classification specification must be reviewed in their entirety to determine the best fit. Foris v. DHSS & DER, 90-0065-PC, 1/24/92
The Commission defers to the fact situation and at what level the classification specifications identify the majority of a position's duties and responsibilities. The Commission does not recognize any standard which would arbitrarily consider a 25% change in duties and responsibilities as necessary to warrant reclassification. Johnson v. DER, 88-0139-PC, 1/10/90
403.12(4)(b) Method of determining correctness
Classification specifications are comparable to administrative standards. Their application to a particular position involves first determining the facts as to the position and then exercising judgment as to which classification best describes, encompasses or fits the position. Although that process involves some discretion in weighing factors against each other, it is essentially the application of a standard to a set of facts. Division of Personnel v. State Pers. Comm. (Marx), Court of Appeals District IV, 84-1024, 11/21/85
The Commission's decision in Smith v. DER, 91-0162-PC, 11/29/93, should not be read as establishing precedent that in job classification appeals, the Commission gives far more weight to evidence provided by witnesses with first hand knowledge of the position(s) being considered than it does to documentary evidence. Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1571, Dane County Circuit Court, 3/18/96; affirmed by Court of Appeals, Ostenso v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-1777, 1/29/98
There is no general rule requiring the Commission to place more weight on testimony of witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the jobs at issue than written position descriptions, distinguishing Smith v. DER, 91-0162-PC, 11/29/93. Sanders & Hubbard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1407, 1408, Dane County Circuit Court, 11/27/96
Classification specifications are not meant to be the exclusive means for assigning a position to a particular classification. WQES factors may be considered in some instances and comparable positions is also an appropriate tool for use in classification. DER’s enabling statute and administrative rules do not constrain it to the use of a single source of information in making classification decisions. Sanders & Hubbard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1407, 1408, Dane County Circuit Court, 11/27/96
The overlap of two or more job specifications in describing a given position is usual and expected. Once a factual determination has been made as to the specifics of an incumbent's job, they must be applied to the various specifications. The specification providing the "best fit" is used to determine the actual classification. The "best fit" is determined by the specification reflecting job duties and activities within which the employe routinely spends a majority of his/her time. DER & DP v. PC (Doll), Dane County Circuit Court, 79-CV-3860, 9/21/80; appeal settled, Court of Appeals, 80-1689, 2/9/81
Where both class definitions were very specific in their descriptions of the positions they included but they did not include appellant’s position, position comparisons became more significant than they would be in other cases where more guidance is available from the class specifications. Morgan v. DER, 96-0137-PC, 8/13/97
While a case may not be decided upon evidence or information obtained without the presence of the appellants, the Commission may choose to analyze a case in a manner that is consistent with previous Commission decisions, even though the appellants were not parties to those earlier cases. Prior decisions of the Commission are available to the public and are accessible via the Commission’s Digest of Decisions. Tiedeman & Marx v. DHSS & DER, 96-0073, 0085-PC, 4/24/97
The hearing before the Commission is a hearing de novo rather than merely a review of respondent’s original approach to the transaction. In other words, regardless of the degree of soundness of the original process followed by respondent, the Commission bases its decision on the evidence adduced at the hearing. Swim & Wilkinson v. DER, 92-0576, 0613-PC, 1/16/97
While the Commission can consider to some extent the legal aspects of a decision issued in another case involving the same class specifications, such as its interpretation of the classification specifications, it cannot consider the findings in making its factual determinations. Giving preclusive effect to the findings would not be appropriate because there was no showing that appellant was a party to that proceeding or was in a position to have obtained judicial review of it. Vakharia v. DNR & DER, 95-0178-PC, 12/20/96
The Commission is not limited to reviewing the information that was before respondents when the reclassification decision was made, but may consider all admissible relevant evidence presented at hearing, regardless of whether it had been available to respondents at the time of the initial decisional process. The appellant’s position description is entitled to some weight but is not conclusive and the Commission may consider additional evidence concerning the duties performed by the appellant’s position, citing Bluhm v. DER, 92-0303-PC, 6/21/94. Rhodes v. DOT & DER, 96-0024-PC, 8/5/96
Where an appellant’s position could plausibly be described by the definition statements of both of the classifications in issue, determination of the appropriate level rests primarily on the examples of work performed and a comparison to other positions in the series, citing Fay v. DER, 92-0438-PC, 7/7/94. Rhodes v. DOT & DER, 96-0024-PC, 8/5/96
The Commission has no authority to impose upon respondents a specific process to follow in reviewing reclassification requests. Harder v. DNR & DER, 95-0181-PC, 8/5/96
Where the class specifications in question were apparently drafted to describe positions which carried out a business management function but the series had been used by respondent to classify positions performing other functions such as the function performed by appellant’s position, the Commission relied on the established allocation pattern and on position comparisons to determine the best classification for appellant’s position. Boeding v. DER, 95-0144-PC, 10/22/96
Where both class specifications in issue describe the majority of appellant’s responsibilities, it is appropriate to consider, as factors, the relative specificity of the language of the specifications and whether one of the two specifications was newly created by respondent with an intent to include the appellant’s position. Sunstad v. DER, 94-0472-PC, 5/28/96
It is appellant’s burden to show that his position is correctly classified at the higher or requested level rather than merely showing that the decision to classify his position at the lower level was incorrect, citing Svensson v. DER, 86-0136-PC, 7/22/87. The conclusion that appellant’s position was excluded from one classification did not mean that appellant had sustained his burden of establishing that his position fell within the alternative classification identified in the issue for hearing. Ellingson v. DNR & DER, 93-0057-PC, 5/28/96
Where the appellant's position satisfied elements of both the lower and higher classification levels, appellant still had to show that the higher classification was a better fit for her position. Miller v. DER, 95-0077-PC, 4/4/96
A class specification which specifically describes the duties and responsibilities of a position provides a closer fit than a specification which only generally describes such duties and responsibilities, citing Steinhauer et al. v. DER, 90-0216-PC, 3/30/93. Dorsey et al. v. DER, 94-0471-PC, etc., 1/23/96
The burden of proof in a reallocation case is on the appellant to show she should be reallocated as requested and the appellant must show that her position is correctly classified at the higher level rather than merely showing that the decision to classify her position at the lower level is incorrect. Meyer-Grover et al. v. DER, 94-1011-PC, etc., 1/23/96
Where certain class specifications were drafted with the appellants' positions in mind, it buttressed the conclusion that appellants are more appropriately classified at that level, citing Schermetzler v. DER, 94-0342-PC, 4/17/95. Dorsey et al. v. DER, 94-0471-PC, etc., 1/23/96
Where many changes had occurred since the promulgation of the class specifications, the language from the specifications could not be applied mechanically. Hagan v. DHSS & DER, 92-0803-PC, 10/27/95
The key determination is whether the appellants' responsibilities were better described at the lower or higher class level. If the appellants did not meet the requirements for the higher level, the question of whether or not the appellants' positions were placed at the lower level due to an agreement by the union and DER to automatically place all positions in a previous class level at the new lower level would have no effect. Stensberg et al. v. DER, 92-0325-PC, etc., 2/20/95
Where the appellant's position could plausibly be described by the definition statements of both of the classifications in issue, determination of the appropriate level rested primarily on the examples of work performed and a comparison to other positions in the series. Fay v. DER, 92-0438-PC, 7/7/94
Even though his position did not fall within any of the allocations at the higher level, classification at that level was justified based upon the class factors. Appellant established that changes in his position had occurred and that other positions had been classified at the higher level despite not meeting any of the specified allocations. Moore v. DNR & DER, 92-0761-PC, 5/2/94
In the context of a motion for summary judgment, the Commission declined to preclude appellants' positions from a classification definition which preceded the sole listed allocation with the phrase "positions at this level typically function as…." and where the listed allocation did not describe the appellants' positions. Morrissey et al. v. DER, 92-0525, 0559-PC, 5/2/94
In addition to the traditional method of comparing duties to class specifications, the Commission also reviewed scores generated by a rating panel which reviewed individual positions, including the appellant's position where certain other positions had been reallocated to the higher level solely by the scores generated by the rating panel. Mangardi v. DER, 90-0335-PC, 3/29/94
Where the definition statement in the class specifications did not specifically mention the appellant's specific or general category of responsibilities, it was appropriate to resort to the allocation factors to determine at which of two class levels within the series appellants' positions should be classified. Moran & Kaeske v. DER, 90-0372, 0382-PC, 1/11/94
Where a position was not specifically identified by one of the class definitions it was appropriate, according to the class specification, to look to the WQES factors to make a final decision on the appropriate classification for the position. Smith v. DER, 91-0162-PC, 11/29/93
Where respondent relied on a rating panel to apply various factors and generate a score for various positions being reviewed and where the appellant's position had not been reviewed by the rating panel, the Commission compared the appellant's position to various other positions which had been reviewed by the panel. Smith v. DER, 91-0162-PC, 11/29/93
Even if the appellant's duties met the criteria in one class specification, a second class specification was more appropriate because it described the appellant's position far more specifically. Coequyt v. DER, 92-0189-PC, 8/11/93
Where the Commission was not confronted with a situation where the appellant's subject matter responsibilities were specifically included at one class level, and were not included in the specified allocation pattern at the other level, the rating panel's opinion was not entitled to conclusive effect and the analysis of other evidence at hearing supported a conclusion that the appellant's position was more correctly classified at the higher level. The Commission's decision in Schmidt v. DER, 90-0246-PC, 3/10/93, was distinguished. Lautz v. DER, 91-0091-PC, 6/23/93
Generally, a classification specification which specifically describe the duties and responsibilities of a position provides a closer fit than a specification which only generally describes such duties and responsibilities. Steinhauer et al. v. DER, 90-0216-PC, 3/30/93
Where the question of whether DILHR employe's position was more properly classified at the 1 or 2 level turned on whether the work performed involved "the most advanced level," and there were different rating panels which reached different conclusions, there was no convincing rationale for accepting one set of results over the other, and the position at the 2 level to which respondent sought to compare appellant's position was in a different program area and it was very difficult to draw a comparison, the Commission relied heavily on the testimony of DILHR program experts who were most familiar with appellant's work. Marx v. DER, 91-0087-PC, 2/5/93
The role played by the results of a second rating panel convened after the initial implementation of the classification survey were limited where the appellant's position was not reviewed by the panel and there was no basis on the record for the Commission to replicate the scoring system with respect to the appellant's position. The Commission made general comparisons between the appellant's position and various positions which were rated by the second panel. Jones v. DER, 91-0145-PC, 11/13/92
The critical factor in reviewing a reclassification decision is what work has been assigned to and performed by the position. Matters such as employe performance or the volume of work are not relevant classification factors between the Library Services Assistant 1 and 2 levels. The fact that the incumbent has the skills and knowledges to perform higher level functions, even if those higher level functions are available, is irrelevant for reclassification if those higher level functions are not assigned to or performed by the position a majority of the time. Manning v. UW & DER, 89-0102-PC, 12/13/90
General classification factors need not be utilized by the Commission in analyzing the appellant's position where the applicable position standard provided that the "class descriptions are also intended to be used as a framework within which positions not specifically defined can be equitably allocated on class factor comparison basis" but where appellant's position did not meet the specific description for Librarian 2 but was within the specific description for Librarian 1. Dayton v. DHSS & DER, 85-0021-PC, 6/11/87
Evidence of actual work performed and pertinent class specifications are necessary to determine the proper classification of a position and the appellant's failure to present any class specifications or any testimony related thereto caused dismissal of the case. Klemmer v. UW & DER, 85-0134-PC, 9/4/86
In interpreting one portion of a position standard, other portions of the standard may be relied upon, just as in construing a statute, the intent of a given section must be derived from the act as a whole. DOT et al. v. DER, 84-0071,etc.-PC, 9/20/85; reversed by Dane County Circuit Court, DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 85-CV-5383, 7/9/86; reversed by Court of Appeals District IV, 86-1483, 1/22/87
At any given time, the existing class specifications are analogous to a set of statutes or rules. In order to determine the best fit for individual positions not specifically identified, the specifications must be interpreted in the same way that statutes and rules must be interpreted in order to apply them to particular fact situations. Klepinger v. DER, 83-0197-PC, 5/9/85; reversed on other grounds by Dane County Circuit Court, DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Klepinger), 85-CV-3022, 12/27/85
A reclassification request transaction normally involves a three part analysis. First, the classification level of the position must be determined. Second, it must be determined whether the changes in the job which precipitated the reclassification were logical and gradual. Third, it must be determined whether the incumbent of the position has performed the permanently assigned duties and responsibilities for a minimum of six months and should be regraded and allowed to stay in the position at the higher level, or whether the position should be opened to competition. Usabel v. DER, 84-0005-PC, 12/6/84
403.12(4)(c) Position description signed by appellant
The appellant did not sustain her burden of proof on the question of her level of supervision where the two class levels in question were clearly differentiated in terms of the level of supervision they received, respondent had identified the level of supervision as a key factor in its analysis, the appellant called her supervisor during the hearing but failed to ask any questions relating to the level of supervision and the appellant's position description, which listed the more extensive degree of supervision and was signed by both the supervisor and the appellant, was left as the only evidence in the record on the point. Orvis v. DOT & DER, 93-0119-PC, 11/3/94
A signed position description is not conclusive and must be considered in conjunction with what the rest of the record reflects about the nature and level of complexity of appellants' work. Olson et al. v. DER, 92-0071-PC, etc., 9/9/94
Appellant's position description was entitled to some weight but was not conclusive and the Commission considered appellant's additional evidence concerning his position because the proceeding before the Commission is a hearing de novo in nature. Bluhm v. DER, 92-0303-PC, 6/21/94
Appellant failed to present a preponderance of evidence that his position was at the higher level despite presenting his own conclusions that the majority of his work was at that level where his assertion was directly contradicted by his official position description, signed by management. Carroll v. DER, 86-0112-PC, 1/8/87
In determining which duties were required for classification at different levels within a series, the Commission focused on the position standards of the new classification rather than on the standard position descriptions that had been developed to describe duties actually assigned by management. DOT et al. v. DER, 84-0071,etc.-PC, 9/20/85; reversed by Dane County Circuit Court, DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 85-CV-5383, 7/9/86; reversed by Court of Appeals District IV, 86-1483, 1/22/87
403.12(4)(d) Majority of duties, significance of time allocated to particular functions
It is the majority of job duties which is relevant in determining the classification to which a particular position should be allocated. Prust & Sauer v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 97-CV-3328, 7/8/98
A position’s class level resulting from a classification survey is typically determined based on the duties and responsibilities actually assigned to the position during a discrete and limited period of time immediately prior to the effective date of the survey. However, where individual project assignments could last for many months and where the mix of projects and employes at any given time might preclude assigning an employe to a project of similar complexity to those projects normally assigned the employe, the normal classification rule is inapplicable. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97
There was no basis for requiring the appellants to spend the majority of their time carrying out their responsibilities relating to adult institutions where the position standard merely required that the responsibilities be carried out in terms of both adult and juvenile institutions. The Commission rejected respondent's argument that was based on the fact that the majority of work examples involved tasks associated with adult institutions. Fulk et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0004-PC, etc., 4/4/96
Where the classification specifications at the higher level required professional library functions for a "significant" amount of time, the term "significant" was not defined in the specifications, respondent's classification analyst testified he used the term to mean between 25% and 49% but half of the position descriptions offered by respondent as representative of the higher level did not meet the 25% standard and ranged as low as 19%, the appellant's position, with less than 19% devoted to these functions, was properly classified at the lower level. Sandow v. DER, 94-0180-PC, 3/8/95
Where the classification language at the higher level required the employe to actually perform the work of overhauling engines and the appellant had been in his position nearly five years and had never performed an overhaul although he was capable of doing so and he would have been given this assignment if the need arose and if his supervisor decided it was cost-effective to do the job in-house, he did not meet the language of the specification. Weber v. DER, 94-0066-PC, 11/22/94
In deciding between one of two class levels for a position, the decision usually will turn on the level at which the majority of the duties and responsibilities of the position can be identified. A corollary of this principle is that two positions do not have to be identical to be classified in the same classification. That is, two positions may be somewhat different in terms of their levels of responsibility, authority, etc., but may still properly be in the same classification if the degree of difference is not sufficient to justify classification at the higher level. Where 65% to 75% of the appellant's position was essentially identical to other positions classified at the lower level, the majority of appellant's position was not at the higher level. Miller v. DHSS & DER, 92-0840-PC, 1/25/94
If changes in time percentages result in the majority of the position's time being spent performing higher level duties and responsibilities, then the position satisfies the requirements for classification at the higher level, regardless of whether any change in the substance or function of these duties and responsibilities has occurred and regardless of the actual size of the change in the percentages of time consumed by certain functions. Austin et al. v. DER, 90-0285, 0294-PC, 10/31/91
Where the class specifications required employes in the Carpenter class to perform "construction carpentry work at the journeyman level of skill, normally on a full time basis" and the appellant performed carpentry work a majority of the time but spent at least 15% of his work in a different craft, his position did not fall within the definition of Carpenter. Landphier v. DER, 90-0373-PC, 8/21/91
Significant change, for purposes of reclassification, is that amount of change which causes the majority of a position's duties to be at a different class level. Ghilardi & Ludwig v. DER, 87-0026, 0027-PC, 4/14/88
The entire position must be considered when making a classification decision. All of the duties must be considered, not just the newly added duties and responsibilities. The fact that new duties, which fell within the higher level specifications, constituted less than a majority of the total duties and responsibilities of the appellant's position was not determinative. Shorey v. DILHR & DER, 87-0070-PC, 2/1/88
Appellant's position was classified correctly where appellant admitted that approximately 75% of his duties involved a function specifically allocated to the lower of the two classifications in issue. McCabe v. DER, 86-0059-PC, 12/18/86
When the appellant performs a function (collection maintenance and preservation) at least 5% to 10% of his work time in addition to performing a primary function (cataloging) more than 50% of his time, then he meets the Librarian I specification which calls for two or more library functions in contrast to the Library Associate 2 classification which calls for one library function. Wager v. DP, 81-0134-PC, 6/18/86
When a function is performed for no more than 2% or 2§% of the appellant's work time, the significance of performing that function is minimal for classification purposes. Monk v. DP, 81-0118-PC, 6/4/86; Badsha v. DP, 81-135-PC, 5/29/86
In reviewing reallocation decisions placing positions at the objective rather than entry level in a progression series that requires knowledge and skill "upon appointment," the Commission looks to see whether all of the requirements for classification at the higher level have been met rather than looking at the majority of duties. DOT et al. v. DER, 84-0071,etc.-PC, 9/20/85; reversed by Dane County Circuit Court, DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 85-CV-5383, 7/9/86; reversed by Court of Appeals District IV, 86-1483, 1/22/87
In order to be reclassified, more than 50% of the appellant's work must be at the higher level. Tiser v. DNR & DER, 83-0217-PC, 10/10/84
A position is not entitled to reclassification because some aspects of the work involved fall within the higher class, particularly if those aspects comprise less than a majority of the total duties and responsibilities of the position. Fonte v. UW & DP, 82-131-PC, 4/15/83
In order to be reclassified, normally the majority of the duties and responsibilities of a position must be at the higher level. Bender v. DOA & DP, 80-210-PC, 7/1/81
403.12(4)(f) Classification of other specific positions
Where it was undisputed that respondent relied on information contained in a 1988 position description when it classified a comparison position, a 1993 position description for the same position that was admitted into the record had limited relevance. Tiedeman & Marx v. DHSS & DER, 96-0073, 0085-PC, 4/24/97
Where the testimony was that the appellant’s positions were virtually identical to positions which were the subject of another appeal previously decided by the Commission, that determination was not conclusive per se on the appellants and they are not foreclosed from trying to establish a contrary result. However, under these circumstances, it is not inappropriate for respondent to rely on the classification of the essentially identical positions, distinguishing Moran & Kaeske v. DER, 90-0372, 0382-PC, 1/11/94. Swim & Wilkinson v. DER, 92-0576, 0613-PC, 1/16/97
A reclassification should not be based on a comparison to a misclassified position. Seidel v. DER, 95-0081-PC, 7/23/96
Use of comparable positions is a well established tool in classification cases and it can be useful to demonstrate how respondent has interpreted or applied the criteria listed in the classification specifications, citing Jacobson v. DER, 94-0147-PC, 4/20/95. Harder v. DNR & DER, 95-0181-PC, 8/5/96
It is appropriate for the Commission to follow the rationale delineated in a case previously decided by the Commission, even though that decision is pending appeal. The earlier decision of the Commission was an exhibit of both parties. Harder v. DNR & DER, 95-0181-PC, 8/5/96
If the classification level of a comparison position is based upon a mistaken interpretation of the class specifications, the Commission will not compound the error by repeating the mistake in regard to the present appeal, citing Augustine & Brown v. DATCP & DER, 84-0036, 37-PC, 9/12/84. Harder v. DNR & DER, 95-0181-PC, 8/5/96
A comparison to a position of a coworker who chose not to appeal the reallocation decision should not serve as the sole basis for deciding the proper classification of the appellants, citing Moran & Kaeske v. DER, 90-0372, 0382-PC, 1/11/94. Aslakson et al. v. DER, 91-0135-PC, etc., 10/22/96
Where a degree of leeway was necessary to justify the conclusion that certain positions continued to be correctly classified under an outdated position standard, the appellants were entitled to the same degree of interpretive leeway when considering whether their positions met the requirements of the same position standard. DER's analyst was aware that the other positions did not meet the position standard yet there was no indication that she reported this discrepancy to anyone else at DER or at the employing agency. Fulk et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0004-PC, etc., 4/4/96
Where a position is clearly misclassified on the basis of the criteria set forth in the class specification, and respondent has acted to remedy the mistake, appellant cannot rely on the initial, mistaken classification to support her case. Mortensen v. DER, 94-0276-PC, 12/7/95
Use of comparable positions as a classification tool is a well established practice in classification cases. Comparable positions can be useful to demonstrate how respondent has interpreted or applied the criteria listed in the class specifications. Jacobson v. DER, 94-0147-PC, 4/20/95
Even though a position identified by appellants did not appear to meet the requirements for classification at the lower of the two class levels in question, the conclusion that one position may be mis-classified did not automatically push the appellants' positions to the higher class level. Stensberg et al. v. DER, 92-0325-PC, etc., 2/20/95
Identification of a position as a representative position in a class specification is not binding if it does not fit within the definitional language of the class specification. Holton v. DER & DILHR, 92-0717-PC, 1/20/95
Where the appellant's position could plausibly be described by the definition statements of both of the classifications in issue, determination of the appropriate level rested primarily on the examples of work performed and a comparison to other positions in the series. Fay v. DER, 92-0438-PC, 7/7/94
Where the evidence supported the conclusion that a comparable position functioned very similarly to the appellants' positions and where respondent relied on and defended the classification of the comparable position at the higher level, there was strong support for the appellants' contention that their positions belonged at the higher class level. Coffaro & Thompson v. DER, 92-0348, 0352-PC, 7/27/94
It was appropriate to consider a comparison position, even though the incumbent did not perform all of the duties specified in the position description, where the position had been newly created and was vacant at the time of its initial classification. The duties and responsibilities actually performed by the successful candidate could not have affected the classification decision. Vogen v. DER, 92-0601-PC, 6/23/94
Even though it appeared, based upon the record established at hearing, that a comparable position had been misclassified at the higher level, as long as the appellants' positions did not meet the higher level specifications, the Commission declined to compound any error which might exist as to the comparable position. Roberts & DeLaMater v. DER, 92-0481, 0638-PC, 3/9/94
Where respondents acknowledged that the appellant's predecessor was misclassified at the AA3 level prior to his retirement, it did not provide a basis for moving the appellant's position from PA3 to PA4, citing Augustine & Brown v. DATCP [& DER], 84-0036 0037-PC, 9/12/84. Olson v. DOA & DER, 92-0731-PC, 2/3/94
In a case arising from the initial decision to reallocate a group of positions to a particular class level and where the class specifications directed an analysis based upon the application of specified allocation factors which were to be applied to similar positions, it was inappropriate to decide the proper classification of the appellants' positions solely by comparing them to the positions of their co-workers who chose not to appeal the reallocation decision. Moran & Kaeske v. DER, 90-0372, 0382-PC, 1/11/94
While the scope of an appeal of a reclassification decision is appropriately limited to the makeup of the subject position as it was considered by the employer, i.e., essentially up to the date the request was submitted, there is no per se barrier to considering a PD which was signed at a later date as a position comparison. Boxrucker v. DHSS & DER, 92-0040-PC, 12/29/92
To rely on the incorrect classification of a comparable position as a basis for classifying appellant's position would simply perpetuate the error, where respondents' witnesses acknowledged the position was misclassified, although no action had been taken to correct the error, and where the misclassification was based on the unambiguous language of the specifications. Gold v. UW & DER, 91-0032-PC, 6/11/92
The degree of weight to be attached to a position comparison depends on the circumstances. Where two adjacent positions on an organization chart are reallocated at the same time as a result of the same classification survey, it cannot be argued successfully that because the higher-level position was reallocated to the 3 level, the lower-level position is locked in to the 2 level. Eagon v. DER, 90-0398-PC, 3/23/92
It is very difficult to conclude that the respondents' decision not to reclassify the appellant's position to the higher level is incorrect where the appellant failed to produce evidence of any comparable position at the higher level, especially where the language of the position standard is very general. Schmidt v. Sec. of State & DER, 89-0129-PC, 1/11/91
Where the Storekeeper 2 class specification specifically required leadwork responsibilities and subsequent to the denial of appellant's reclassification request by DNR, DER changed its application of the specification so that leadwork responsibility was no longer required, the Commission upheld the DNR decision and refused to apply DER's new interpretation where the rationale for DER's decision was completely undeveloped on the record and the leadwork requirement in the class specification was unambiguous. Crary v. DNR & DER, 89-0133-PC, 6/1/90
An agency cannot avoid the effect of an unfavorable position comparison merely by contending that the comparison position is misclassified where the only material distinction between the two classification levels at issue is the size of the section supervised, size is nowhere defined in the position standard and the respondent has taken no action regarding the allegedly misclassified comparison position. Jenkins v. DOR & DER, 88-0061-PC, 5/31/89
The appellant failed to sustain his burden of proof where three of the four position comparisons favored respondent and only one favored the appellant. Jenkins v. DOR & DER, 88-0061-PC, 5/31/89
Where the reclassification decision hinged on whether appellant's position could be considered to have lead work duties and responsibilities, it was appropriate to look at other positions that had been determined to have such duties and responsibilities. The employer is not required to conform its current reclassification decisions to all previous reclassification decisions, whenever made, nor must the employer always decide that an error was made in a prior transaction in order to be able to avoid its effect as a comparison. However, where respondent had neither admitted that certain earlier reclassifications were erroneous nor had contended that there had been an intervening change in policy or circumstances and had suggested that other documentation (prior position descriptions) supported their reclassifications, the Commission relied on evidence in the record that the appellant's position was comparable to the other positions as to their lead work responsibility at the time of their reclassification. Arny v. PSC & DER, 86-0200-PC, 10/27/87
Where the incumbent in the comparable position also had a pending appeal before the Commission seeking reclassification to the same level as the appellant was seeking in the instant appeal, the Commission considered the comparable position in determining the appropriate classification of the appellant's position absent some evidence that the determinative factor in respondent's decision to deny the reclassification of the comparable position was a comparison to the appellant's position. Critchley v. UW & DER, 86-0037-PC, 1/8/87
Position comparisons are particularly useful when evaluating the classification of positions from among relatively generally worded class specifications, particularly where there may be little or nothing in the language of the competing class specifications to provide guidance in the classification of the position in question. Saindon v. DER, 85-0212-PC, 10/9/86
To the extent that two "comparable" positions are erroneously classified at a certain level, they would not provide a basis for also classifying the appellants' positions at that level. Danielski et al. v. DER, 85-0196-PC, 9/17/86
The appellant was not entitled to reclassification based upon seven position descriptions alleged by appellant to represent comparable positions classified at the higher level where the overwhelming evidence was that the seven positions failed to meet the classification specifications for the higher level. McCord v. DER, 85-0147-PC, 3/13/86
Comparisons of an appellant's position to similar positions often will clarify relatively nebulous distinctions or criteria that exist after reviewing merely the relevant positions’ standards. Based on the classification of the most similar comparables, a particular classification is usually suggested. Langteau v. UW & DER, 83-0246-PC, 2/13/85
To reclassify a position simply because another comparable position is inappropriately classified would compound an error and would ignore the requirement that the majority of the duties and responsibilities of a position satisfy the applicable specifications before the position may be classified at a particular level. Augustine & Brown v. DATCP [& DER], 84-0036, 0037-PC, 9/12/84
Reclassification of appellant's position was not supported by the fact that the duties currently performed by two comparable positions had changed so that those two positions might no longer justify classification at the higher levels. Card v. UW & DER, 83-0198-PC, 2/2/84
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.