Wisconsin Personnel Commission's             Digest of Decisions        March, 1999 Version

Sections 403.12(4)(g) through 403.12(4)(x)

[Previous material]    [Next material]

403.12(4)(g) Size of unit

Where the sole material distinction between two classification levels was the size of the section supervised and the appellant's position had not changed in terms of the section size, there had been no "logical and gradual change" upon which to base a reclassification, and any change in the classification of appellant's position due to a different conclusion about the size of appellant's section would have to be effectuated by a reallocation. Jenkins v. DOR & DER, 88-0061-PC, 5/31/89

In a reclassification appeal within the Personnel Manager series, where the number of employes at the institution determine the classification level, it is inappropriate to equate classified employes with unclassified employes, when the personnel function related to unclassified student employes and faculty and academic staff is less comprehensive than the personnel work performed with respect to the classified employes. Barry v. DP, 80-346-PC, 11/19/81

Where the sole criterion in the class specifications distinguishing the Personnel Manager 3 and 4 levels is the size of the institutions, other factors such as non-personnel duties not mentioned in the specifications cannot be considered in determining whether to reclassify the positions in question. Shepard v. DP, 80-234, 237, 239-PC, 6/3/81

The record failed to support the appellants' contention that notwithstanding specific numerical criteria for institutional size contained in the class specifications, an allocation pattern utilizing different criteria had been developed over time. The positions which had been reallocated to a level apparently higher than justified by the numerical criteria in the class specifications were done so on the basis of DHSS representations that impending mergers, which in fact never ensued, would bring the institutions up to the required size levels. The fact that the respondent initiated corrective action with respect to these positions shortly before the hearing was not found to be attempted intimidation. Shepard v. DP, 80-234, 237, 239-PC, 6/3/81


403.12(4)(h) Duties changed

Reclassification decisions are to be based upon the duties assigned to the position as of the effective date of the request. Gutierrez v. DOT & DER, 96-0096-PC, 4/11/97

A tentative work assignment which was inconsistent with previous levels of responsibility assigned to the appellant and which was never carried out by the appellant was not an appropriate basis for reallocating the appellant pursuant to a classification survey. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97

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

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

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

Appellants' duties were unchanged from the time their positions had been reallocated until the time they filed their reclassification request two years later. Therefore, there had been no logical and gradual change as required for reclassification. Henderson et al. v. DHSS & DER, 92-0804-PC, 8/18/94

While some technological advancement is implicit in any set of duties, there can be technological developments which have a dramatic effect on the set of responsibilities assigned to a particular position and may justify classification of the position at a higher level, even though the new technology is not referenced in the specifications. Sannes v. DER, 92-0085-PC, 8/23/93

Nothing in the civil service code prevents management from adding duties in connection with a reallocation nor from assigning duties in addition to those that were there on appointment. Ponto v. DER, 90-0181-PC, 4/17/92

The appellant's position was properly classified at the Facilities Repair Worker 1 level, even though the appellant had been performing Painter duties for the period from October, 1987 to January 24, 1989, where he had been reassigned FRW 1 duties starting January 25th and the effective date of his classification request was January 26th. Seay v. DER, 89-0117-PC, 1/24/91

In conducting its reclassification analysis, the Commission must focus on the duties assigned to the position and being performed on the effective date. The analysis may not be based on duties which had been performed earlier but were no longer assigned by the appointing authority to the position on the effective date. Schmidt v. Sec. of State & DER, 89-0129-PC, 1/11/91

The appellants' argument that their positions had been eroded by the assignment of certain of their duties to other positions did not help the appellants' reclassification appeal. The general rule is that the appointing authority, or management, has the right to assign and reassign duties and responsibilities to employes, §230.06(1)(b), Stats., DER has the authority to determine the classification of positions based on the duties and responsibilities assigned by management, §230.09(1), (2)(a), Stats., and it is only DER's decision which can be appealed to the Commission, §230.44(1)(b), Stats. Holubowicz et al. v. DHSS & DER, 88-0039-PC, 1/25/89

The Commission found that the appellant's duties had not changed materially since the effective date of the personnel classification survey, and that his duties were still adequately described by the more specific Chief, Protective Services specification (rather than the more general Administrative Officer 2 specification). Hamele v. DER, 85-0172-PC, 8/6/86


403.12(4)(j) New specifications applied

A tentative work assignment which was inconsistent with previous levels of responsibility assigned to the appellant and which was never carried out by the appellant was not an appropriate basis for reallocating the appellant pursuant to a classification survey. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97

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

The conclusion that appellant's position was more appropriately classified at a certain level was buttressed by the evidence in the record that the relevant specifications were drafted with the appellant's position in mind. Schermetzler v. DER, 94-0342-PC, 4/17/95

Even though a definition statement identified two allocations, one for a "department expert" and one for a "districtwide expert," a district position which did not meet the terms of the specifications which referred to positions responsible for "developing… statewide policies and programs…" and "considered to be the statewide expert in their assigned program area" could not be classified at that higher level. Fitzgerald v. DER, 92-0308-PC, 1/11/94

Where appellant's position adequately met the more specific language of the newer classification, it was more properly classified there than in the more general language of the older classification. Bloom v. DER, 92-0088-PC, 8/25/93

The Commission declined to accept the respondent's argument that respondent could not determine whether the appellant's position met an allocation in the specifications at the higher level because the employing agency had not yet developed the criteria for measurement. The respondent cannot abdicate its responsibility to classify positions as provided in §§ 230.09(l) and (2)(a), Stats. Miller v. DER, 85-0066-PC, 4/16/86

Where appellant requested reclassification in April of 1984 from ES 4 to ES 5, the fact that appellant's position was reallocated to ES 5 as a result of the approval of new position standards for the ES series in April of 1985 as irrelevant to the issue before the Commission. Rasman v. DNR & DER, 85-0002-PC, 8/1/85


403.12(4)(k) Promise of advancement

Equitable considerations, such as an alleged statement by the survey coordinator that the appellant's position would remain at its previous classification, do not prevail over the requirements of the class specifications. Doemel v. DER, 94-0146-PC, 5/18/95; Pockat v. DER, 94-0148-PC, 5/18/95; Strey v. DER, 94-0150-PC, 5/18/95

A promise to reclassify, based upon the assumption of duties upon another employe's retirement, is not binding on an agency, citing Ryczek v. Wettengel, 73-26, 7/3/74. Olson v. DOA & DER, 92-0731-PC, 2/3/94


403.12(4)(1) Teacher credits

The Commission sustained the respondents' action refusing, pursuant to Pers. 13.06(5), Wis. Adm. Code, to reclassify the appellants to Teacher 6 when they satisfied the requirements therefore during their probationary periods. Kluttermann et al. v. DHSS & DP, 78-12,etc.-PC, 8/19/80; affirmed by the Dane County Circuit Court, Kluttermann v. State Personnel Commission, 80-CV-5546, 3/2/82


403.12(4)(m) Time served in lower class

In an appeal of the effective date of a reclassification, the Commission has jurisdiction to determine whether the respondent's policy specifying the minimum qualifications necessary for reclass comported with the class specifications and, if so, whether respondents applied the policy to the appellant's position in a correct manner. Heath & Mork v. DOC & DER, 93-0143-PC, 6/23/94

The operative reclassification standards which require two years of experience as an Officer 1 precluded the reclassification of the appellant's position where over the course of the 24 month period, the appellant had worked in a different classification and was on medical leave for a total of 7 months. Graff v. DHSS & DER, 88-0046-PC, 1/25/89

Where the requirements for reclassification from Officer I to Officer 2 include two years of "experience" at the Officer I level, the most reasonable interpretation of the term "experience" is actual work experience. Periods in which the appellant was on approved medical leaves of absences do not qualify as Officer I "experience." Conley v. DHSS, 83-0075-PC, 5/23/84

Respondents' decision to require one year service as Trooper 2 before considering for reclassification to Trooper 3 was sustained where the employe had a 20 year hiatus from enforcement duties as Motor Vehicle Inspector before move to Trooper 2 position. Snider v. DP/DOT, 81-254-PC, 3/8/82

The Commission affirmed the respondents' refusal to consider the appellant for reclassification to Trooper 3, noting that although the appellant had 111-2 years prior experience as a Trooper, that had been followed by 61-2 years as an investigator, a non-law enforcement position, and that the work of a trooper is performed highly independently, with little immediate supervision, and with correspondingly little opportunity to observe and evaluate performance. Mittelstadt v. DOT & DP, 81-31-PC, 10/2/81

The Commission determined that the respondents' requirement of 12 months experience as a FSW-2 before reclassification to FSW-3 was consistent with the provisions of §Pers. 3.02(4), Wis. Adm. Code, and not improper. Pittz v. DHSS & DP, 79-116-PC, 1/13/81

Where the attorney's pay plan required 11-2 years of employment as a prerequisite to regrade eligibility, it was held that time in layoff status could not be credited towards the period of employment. Germane v. DILHR, 79-50-PC, 8/30/79


403.12(4)(n) Employe retention

Employe retention is normally not a classification factor. Theobald v. DP, 78-82-PC, 1/8/82


403.12(4)(o) Other quantitative factor

The Commission declined to disregard the score given appellant's position by one of nine rating panel members where there was testimony that the panel results were within the accepted 80% standard deviation, there was no reason to suspect bias on the part of the rater in question and the record did not enable an analysis of the effect on all of the positions' scores if one rater's score would be excluded for each position. Lulloff v. DER, 90-0347-PC, 4/19/94; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Lulloff v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-1633, 6/6/96; affirmed by Court of appeals, Lulloff v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 96-2189, 1/8/98

Such quantitative factors as staff size, may be a recognized factor in the classification process. Usually greater size has positive implications from a classification standpoint. Ballhorn v. DILHR & DER, 87-0033-PC, 12/17/87

A rating system used by DNR in classifying assistant area forester positions could serve as a useful classification tool but could not override the requirements of the classification specifications. Jones v. DNR & DER, 85-0127-PC, 1/24/86

Certain quantitative factors, such as the size of an automotive fleet managed by a position, can be a recognized factor in the classification process. Dworak v. DP, 79-PC-CS-198, 2/9/82


403.12(4)(r) Field audit

Appellant offered no persuasive evidence that respondent acted improperly by not conducting an onsite audit of his position prior to the reclassification decision or that the failure to conduct such an audit would have affected the outcome of respondent's decision. Wedul v. DOT & DER, 85-0118-PC, 2/6/86

During the Commission's hearing on an appeal of a reclassification denial, consideration of the procedure followed by the respondent in making its findings would serve no useful purpose and would have no probative value in relation to the merits of the appeal because the Commission's hearing on an appeal is a de novo proceeding and the facts to be considered are not limited to the findings made by the respondent in its review of the request. Rasman v. DNR & DER, 85-0002-PC, 8/1/85

The failure of the Division of Personnel to have field audited the positions in question was not improper, as this is not required by statute, and the division's classification manual, which requires a field audit where it appears that a reclassification request may be denied, was established only for agencies acting on a delegated basis pursuant to §230.05(2), Stats. Shepard v. DP, 80-234, 237, 239-PC, 6/3/81


403.12(4)(s) Temporary duties/responsibilities and continuing responsibilities

Work performed on a temporary basis does not qualify a position for reclassification unless the work has been performed for a number of years and the timing of future changes cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, citing Miller v. DHSS & DER, 91-0129-PC, 5/1/92. Gutierrez v. DOT & DER, 96-0096-PC, 4/11/97

A tentative work assignment which was inconsistent with previous levels of responsibility assigned to the appellant and which was never carried out by the appellant was not an appropriate basis for reallocating the appellant pursuant to a classification survey. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97

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

Where the employing agency planned to fill a new position through competitive examination but a hiring freeze existed which delayed the process and appellant volunteered to perform the duties of the new position knowing the agency planned to conduct permanent hires on a competitive basis, the work assignment was temporary. Wenzel v. DOR & DER, 96-0037-PC, 11/14/96

Where appellants performed their work on a seasonal or cyclical basis, it was appropriate to look at their duties being performed throughout the year in order to insure an accurate classification decision. Stensberg et al. v. DER, 92-0325-PC, etc., 2/20/95

Filling in for a position due to a vacancy is a temporary rather than a permanent assignment and is not entitled to consideration for classification purposes. A position which, over time, becomes vacant on a periodic basis, cannot be considered a permanent vacancy, just as filling in for some of the duties of the periodically vacant position cannot be considered a permanent responsibility. Stensberg et al. v. DER, 92-0325-PC, etc., 2/20/95

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

Those duties appellant performed only in the absence of his supervisor may not serve as the basis for a classification decision. Leiterman v. DER, 92-0557-PC, 9/9/94

An acting or temporary assignment, in the absence of a showing that the assignment continued for an extensive period of time, cannot serve as the basis for a reclassification. Dolsen v. UW & DER, 93-0066-PC, 6/21/94

The fact that a co-worker classified at a higher level performed appellant's duties when the appellant was on vacation would not be determinative in terms of establishing the proper classification level of the co-worker's position. Ksicinski v. DER, 92-0798-PC, 6/21/94

The Commission did not consider a vacant lead position in terms of the impact it could have on the appellants' positions if the vacant position was to be filled in the future. It was highly speculative as to whether the position would ever be filled and, if so, what the assigned duties would be. Medora et al. v. DER, 90-0324-PC, etc., 9/18/92

Classification of a position is based on its permanently assigned duties and responsibilities and cannot be affected by sporadic acting assignments, citing Graham v. DILHR & DER, 84-0052-PC, 4/12/85. Siewert v. DER, 91-0235-PC, 9/18/92

Work performed on a temporary basis does not qualify a position for reclassification unless the work has been performed for a number of years and the timing of future changes cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Miller v. DHSS & DER, 91-0129-PC, 5/1/92

The fact that the supervisory position over the appellants' positions was vacant for a period or was filled temporarily by someone who may not have been able to have operated at a full performance level is immaterial from a classification standpoint so long as the position has not been vacant for so long that the vacancy has become in effect the status quo. Holubowicz et al. v. DHSS & DER, 88-0039-PC, 1/25/89

Higher level work performed on a temporary basis does not qualify a position to be classified at the higher level. Graham v. DILHR & DER, 84-0052-PC, 4/12/85

While the Commission recognizes that as a general proposition, positions are not reclassified on the basis of temporary job changes, there comes a point after duties have been in place for a number of years and the timing of future changes cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, that the changes cannot be considered "temporary." Fredisdorf et al. v. DP, 80-300-PC, 3/19/82

Reclassification to Personnel Specialist 6 requires "...responsibility for a significant segment of a major program on a continuing basis..." The Commission held that the appellant's work with the clerical survey was "continuing," where it began in 1976 and was still continuing in 1981. Belongia v. DP, 79-263-PC, 6/30/81


403.12(4)(t) Job sharing

Where the appellants shared a position and were co-directors of a unit pursuant to a team management concept, and were jointly accountable for all the projects in their unit whether or not at that moment a specific project had been assigned to them, a reclassification decision must take into account the level of duties and responsibilities of the entire position. Cirilli & Lindner v. DP, 81-39-PC, 8/4/83


403.12(4)(u) Professional and paraprofessional duties

In considering whether the appellants performed professional engineering, the Commission considered the definition of professional engineering set forth in §443.01, Stats., rather than relying on the definition of "professional employe" found in §111.81(15), Stats., and concluded that the appellants did not function the majority of their time at the professional engineering level. Miller et al. v. DER, 92-0122-PC, etc., 5/5/94

Appellant's work of designing specialized instrumentation and equipment was considered professional where the appellant established that he performed this responsibility independently and was given free rein to come up with solutions when a problem arose or whenever he thought of a way to improve existing equipment. Peck v. DER, 92-0130-PC, 11/18/93

While some duties performed by appellants involved making engineering judgments, the majority of their duties did not involve the application of engineering principles. Kaminski et al. v. DER, 91-0121-PC, 9/30/93

Responsibilities to provide guidance to staff on the applicable policies and procedures as well as to insure that the policies and procedures were followed constituted paraprofessional work. Havel-Lang v. DHSS & DER, 91-0052-PC, 8/26/92

Complainant's position was responsible for exercising considerable discretion and making many "judgment calls", but was not responsible for developing and maintaining statistical information reporting systems as described in the professional level Research Assistant series. Rather, complainant operated a statistical information reporting system as set forth in the position standard at the paraprofessional level of Research Technician 3. Schultz v. DER, 83-0119-PC, 84-0252-PC, 85-0029-PC-ER, 8/5/87; Schultz v. DER & DILHR, 84-0015-PC-ER, 8/5/87

The Commission could not conclude that the appellant's duties were at a professional level where there was no evidence that the position incumbent needed a college degree or equivalent training which is a characteristic of the Educational Services Assistant series and also is cited in the statutory definition of "professional employe" at §111.81(15)(a)4, Stats. Saindon v. DER, 85-0212-PC, 10/9/86

Appellant's position was found not to have "professional" duties and responsibilities as that term is used in §111.81(11)(a) where appellant was not required to apply professional research methodologies but took raw data and put it in a more useful form for other parties and in doing so used procedures and/or formulas which have been established over time and which must be constantly reapplied to new data. Vranes v. DER, 83-0122-PC, 7/19/84

Commission found that appellant did not have duties and responsibilities of a "professional" nature. Braith v. DER, 83-0105-PC, 4/25/84

Appellants were found to not have "professional" duties and responsibilities in their help desk positions where they were primarily involved in diagnosing and solving the less complex operational problems encountered with data process systems designed, programmed, installed, maintained and operated by others. Ellsworth & Parrell v. DP, 82-0021, 0022-PC, 8/23/83


403.12(4)(v) Volunteer/committee responsibilities

Service on certain committees that had some input into the development of statewide policies, which was common to many positions in a wide range of class levels, fell considerably short of the requirement of having responsibility for "developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating statewide policies and programs" and "considered to be the statewide expert in their assigned program area." Koch v. DER, 92-0555-PC, 8/22/94

A district position which had some input into statewide policies as a member of a committee and sometimes provided advice that would otherwise normally come from a central office expert fell short of meeting the requirement in the class specifications of being responsible for "developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating statewide policies and programs" and being "considered to be the statewide expert in their assigned program area." Rasman v. DER, 92-0435-PC, 6/21/94

The fact that the appellant volunteers in performing library preservation responsibilities does not cause his efforts to be uncompensable where responsibilities are ongoing, professional and programmatic. Wager v. DP, 81-0134-PC, 6/18/86


403.12(4)(w) Leadwork/supervisory/management responsibilities

Where the class specifications recited the section chief as the level where management responsibilities began, it was improper to rely upon the definition of management in §111.81 for setting the bureau level as the beginning level. Murray v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93-CV-2661, 4/29/94

Subordinate Limited Term Employes were not considered in determining whether or not the appellant qualified as a supervisor within the meaning of the class specifications at issue. Ellingson v. DNR & DER, 93-0057-PC, 5/28/96

Where, on an ongoing and continuous, albeit somewhat unpredictable basis, engineers were assigned to the appellants in the maintenance unit from among the group of positions designated "pool" positions and, when it did occur, the appellants carried essentially the same supervisory authority as did their counterparts in the design and construction sections, appellants supervised the pool positions as required by the class specifications. There was nothing in the definition of "supervisor" found in §111.81(19), Stats., that requires an employe to have authority year around in order to be considered a supervisor. The reference on the position description form to supervision of "subordinate employes in permanent positions" is a means of distinguishing permanent positions from project or limited term positions. Von Ruden et al. v. DER, 91-0149-PC, etc., 8/31/95

Appellants , who were employed as construction representatives, did not meet the classification requirement for leadwork even though other persons in the same classification had periodically been assigned to the same construction project as appellants and appellants retained project oversight authority and accountability where the assignments were either temporary or project specific and where appellants' supervisors did not intend to create superior/subordinate relationships. Runyan v. DER, 94-0052-PC, 9/21/94

Where the Manager class specifications in question acknowledged the typical allocation of a "management" position was at the section head level, the inquiry before the Commission was whether the appellant's position required the exercise of "similar functions and responsibilities" within the meaning of §111.81(13). Pamperin v. DER, 90-0321-PC, 7/25/94

The appellant failed to show that he participated in a significant manner in the formulation, determination and implementation of management policy and was "engaged predominantly in executive and management functions" where he spent only 5% of his duties on the determination of policy and up to 30% on supervision. Pamperin v. DER, 90-0321-PC, 7/25/94

A supervisor does not have to have more than one subordinate in order to meet the definition in §111.81(19), Stats. McKnight v. DER, 92-0493-PC, 5/2/94

Appellants, who, as project managers, directed the work of other state employed architects and engineers, oversaw the work of "contract employes" who were paid by the state but were not in the classified service and also had a directory role with respect to outside architect/engineer firms and had a role in evaluating the performance of those firms, were not supervisors. Germanson et al. v. DER, 91-0223-PC, etc., 5/20/93

Appellant was functioning as a leadworker consistent with the testimony of her supervisors where she guided, scheduled and trained LTEs as well as permanent employes. Jesse v. DHSS & DER, 92-0036-PC, 9/18/92

The reference in the Civil Engineer-Transportation-Supervisor 5 definition to "11 or more FTE" is a reference to state employes, and non-state employes cannot be considered for classification purposes under that language. The language in the specifications was meant to mean actual direct supervision, including all that entails in the way of staffing, discipline, grievance processing, etc., of state employes. Felsner et al. v. DER, 91-0199, etc.-PC, 7/8/92, explained further in Von Ruden et al. v. DER, 91-0149-PC, etc., 7/8/92

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

Supervision of permanent and non-permanent employes cannot be strictly equated for classification purposes. It is axiomatic that permanent employes have more rights and their supervision entails more responsibility. Smetana v. DNR & DER, 89-0055-PC, 2/12/90

The appellant was found not to be a "leadworker" as used in the Management Information Technician (MIT 4) position standard where she provided certain training and technical advice for other technicians in the unit but there was no evidence indicating the appellant assigned work or was accountable for the majority of the work of the other technicians. Davidson v. DP, 81-291-PC, 1/20/83


403.12(4)(x) Level of supervision

The distinction between serving as an assistant project manager rather than as a project manager is one of responsibility rather than of the relative degree of supervision received. Mueller v. DOT & DER, 93-0109-PC, 2/27/97

An employe’s work performance can have an impact on the assigned level of supervision and on the types of duties and responsibilities assigned, both of which are key classification considerations. Nelson v. DER, 92-0310-PC, 9/17/96

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 position which did not have the authority to effectively recommend formal discipline such as suspensions and discharges and was not identified as the first step in the grievance procedure lacked significant components in the classification's definition for supervisor. Koch v. DER, 92-0555-PC, 8/22/94

Appellant was properly designated as receiving "limited" rather than "general" supervision where, in comparison to another employe whose position description referenced "general" supervision, the appellant's work was reviewed more closely both for content and form, his meetings outside the work unit were more closely monitored and his position description referenced "limited" supervision. Stemrich v. DER, 91-0058-PC, 6/4/93


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.

[Personnel Commission homepage]    [PC Digest Introduction]

[Previous material]    [Next material]