[Previous material] [Next material]
403.12(6) Delegation
Where the respondent UW lacked delegated authority from DER to have changed the classification of appellant's position to the PA Supervisor series, the UW's failure to have recommended a supervisory classification was not an appealable action. Where DER had not issued a decision with respect to the PA Supervisor series, the Commission limited its post-hearing order to classifications for which the UW had delegated authority. Cernohous v. UW & DER, 89-0131-PC, 9/13/90
403.12(7) Reclassification/reallocation versus demotion or layoff
Where respondent took a personnel action 1) which it denominated a reallocation of appellant's position, 2) the stated basis for which was the correction of an error and 3) which did not affect appellant's then current base pay although the pay range of the new classification was lower than the pay range of the prior classification and the change in the pay range either did or could have had a negative impact on appellant's salary progression, the personnel action was not a demotion and the appellant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wilkinson v. DER, 92-0613-PC, 1/31/96
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
In a reallocation appeal, where the issue was one of whether the reallocation decision was correct, the Commission would not consider the appellant's contention that the positions of appellant's co-workers (rather than appellant's own position) should have been selected for a reassignment of duties (which resulted in a downward reallocation). The issue before the Commission was not one of whether there was just cause for a demotion. Bornfleth v. DER, 85-0200-PC, 5/29/86
403.12(8) Reclassification versus reallocation [see also 403.12(11)]
Reclassification was inappropriate where the duties that might, as of 1994, justify a higher classification, were responsibilities that also would have justified a higher classification in 1992, when the appellant was hired. Appellant expressly declined to pursue reallocation of his position. Gunderson v. DER, 95-0095-PC, 8/5/96
Where the record did not indicate that prior reclassifications of appellants' positions included either a review by DER or a request by appellants for the classification (Parole Board Member) they were now seeking, the appellants' failure to have appealed from previous decisions which granted their requests to intermediate classifications was not a bar to their classification, in the current appeal, to the PBM level, citing Vesperman et al. v. DOT & DER, 93-0101-PC, etc., 2/15/94. Fulk et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0004-PC, etc., 4/4/96
Because the key changes to the appellant's position occurred as a result of a reorganization, they could not be considered "gradual" and reclassification was inappropriate, but the changes met the requirements for a reallocation under both §ER 3.01(2)(f) and (g), Wis. Adm. Code. Phelps v. DOR & DER, 91-0003-PC, 5/20/93
The change in DER's interpretation of the leadwork requirement in the Facilities Repair Worker 4 classification specifications to include leading the work of inmates was a change in the concept of the class specifications from the previous interpretation, thereby meeting the definition of reallocation found in §ER 3.01(2)(a), Wis. Adm. Code. Appellants failed to show that their positions had undergone gradual change as required for reclassification. Nagorsen & Boehrig v. DOC & DER, 92-0158, 0156-PC, 12/17/92
Management's decision to reassign a Civil Engineer-Transportation Senior to the appellant for supervision resulted in a logical, but not gradual, change in the appellant's duties where the Sup 3 and Sup 4 class specifications differentiated on the basis of whether the employe supervised any senior or advanced civil engineers. At the time of the reassignment, appellant was classified as a Civil Engineer-Transportation Supervisor 3, and had no senior or advanced level engineers assigned to him. Wacker v. DOT & DER, 92-0251-PC, 12/17/92
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
Respondent's action to reallocate the appellant's position (rather than to reclassify the position) was affirmed despite reference in Commission's order in predecessor case (Marx v. DP, 78-138-PC, 10/1/81) for respondent to use an "effective date of reclassification", where the reference in the order to reclassification had been in error and reallocation of the appellant's position was consistent with applicable law. Marx v. DATCP & DP, 82-0050-PC, 3/18/87
403.12(10) Prior reorganization
Even if the appellant had been assigned new duties when a lead worker position had been eliminated, and even if those responsibilities had resulted in a substantive and significant change in appellant's position, the assignment would not have been gradual and would not have qualified appellant's position for reclassification. Murphy v. DHFS & DER, 98-0013-PC, 3/24/99; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 99-CV-0944, 2/16/00
The Commission cannot consider or address, in the context of a reallocation appeal, the propriety of a reorganization, the resulting utilization of personnel and the appellants' contention that a downward reallocation of their positions is contrary to their career development program. Tuttle, Oinonen, & Delaney v. DATCP & DER, 85-0153, 0154, 0158-PC, 5/14/86
Appellant was not entitled to reallocation of his position from Administrative Assistant 2 to 3 where, as a result of the consolidation of two divisions within DHSS, appellant was reassigned from his old Area Services Specialist 2 position in the Division of Economic Assistance to an Administrative Assistant position with new duties in the Division of Community Services and where the new duties upon reassignment represented a change of more than 50% of appellant's former duties. Given this abrupt change, a new position was effectively created, requiring competition to fill it. Chase v. DER, 85-0033-PC, 3/13/86
The Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider, as part of an appeal of a reclassification denial, issues relative to a reorganization that occurred prior to the denial, or the issue of whether the appellant suffered a functional reduction in grade or reallocation based on the theory that although his position had always been formally classified at the Civil Engineer 4 level, he had been performing duties at the Civil Engineer 5 level and therefore the reorganization must have reduced his position to the Civil Engineer 4 level. Schiffer v. DOT & DP, 81-4, 342-PC, 2/18/82
403.12(11) Logical and gradual change
Even if the appellant had been assigned new duties when a lead worker position had been eliminated, and even if those responsibilities had resulted in a substantive and significant change in appellant's position, the assignment would not have been gradual and would not have qualified appellant's position for reclassification. Murphy v. DHFS & DER, 98-0013-PC, 3/24/99; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 99-CV-0944, 2/16/00
The nature of appellant's duties and responsibilities when she was first appointed to the subject position were essentially irrelevant for purposes of a reclassification appeal when her position had been reallocated in the interim. The relevant changes would be those between the duties of her position at the time of the reallocation and her duties at the time of her subsequent reclassification request. Murphy v. DHFS & DER, 98-0013-PC, 3/24/99; affirmed Dane County Circuit Court, 99-CV-0944, 2/16/00
Where appellant began conducting workshops some time in 1991 or 1992 and her responsibilities in this area gradually increased until she filed her reclassification request approximately 4 years later, the addition of the workshop-related duties and responsibilities was gradual. Likewise, it was a logical change for Job Service staff to make greater use of workshops and outreach activities for providing information and instruction to unemployment compensation applicants relating to job-seeking skills and resources rather than relying on one-to-one personal contacts. Olson v. DILHR [DWD] & DER, 96-0015-PC, 10/22/96
Appellants' positions underwent a logical but not gradual change when their responsibility to make release decisions for juveniles housed in juvenile facilities was extended by statute to include release decisions for adult juvenile offenders housed in either juvenile or adult facilities, where this extension of their responsibilities constituted duties warranting a higher classification under the class specifications. Fulk et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0004-PC, etc., 4/4/96
While appellant performed the duties and responsibilities of her position by utilizing different procedures as a result of changes in technology and reporting requirements, the essential duties and responsibilities of her position had not changed and reclassification was not warranted. Johnson v. DER, 95-0122-PC, 1/31/96
Changes to appellant's duties were not illogical where they represented an expansion of what had already been identified as 20% of his duties in his previous position description, the appellant had a more significant concentration than another employe in the subject area in question and it was a management decision. McCullough v. DER, 94-0394-PC, 6/9/95
Management's decision to downgrade a vacant position and to reassign the position's leadwork responsibilities to the appellant was not gradual. Dolsen v. UW & DER, 93-0066-PC, 6/21/94
Where the appellant's two position descriptions merely reworked the same duties, appellant's responsibilities remained essentially the same, and he failed to establish a logical and gradual change in the six-month period before he made his reclassification request. The requirements for reclassification were not met. Perea v. DHSS & DER, 93-0036-PC, 3/29/94
Because the key changes to the appellant's position occurred as a result of a reorganization, they could not be considered "gradual" and reclassification was inappropriate, but the changes met the requirements for a reallocation under both §ER 3.01(2)(f) and (g), Wis. Adm. Code. Phelps v. DOR & DER, 91-0003-PC, 5/20/93
The change in DER's interpretation of the leadwork requirement in the Facilities Repair Worker 4 classification specifications to include leading the work of inmates was a change in the concept of the class specifications from the previous interpretation, thereby meeting the definition of reallocation found in §ER 3.01(2)(a), Wis. Adm. Code. Appellants failed to show that their positions had undergone gradual change as required for reclassification. Nagorsen & Boehrig v. DOC & DER, 92-0158, 0156-PC, 12/17/92
Management's decision to reassign a Civil Engineer-Transportation Senior to the appellant for supervision resulted in a logical, but not gradual, change in the appellant's duties where the Sup 3 and Sup 4 class specifications differentiated on the basis of whether the employe supervised any senior or advanced civil engineers. At the time of the reassignment, appellant was classified as a Civil Engineer-Transportation Supervisor 3, and had no senior or advanced level engineers assigned to him. Wacker v. DOT & DER, 92-0251-PC, 12/17/92
It is not required that a certain percentage change be shown, only such change that would take a position's classification from one level to another. Jesse v. DHSS & DER, 92-0036-PC, 9/18/92
Appellant's position as a Shipping and Mailing Clerk underwent a logical and gradual change over a 6 year period where the level of supervision over appellant's position was reduced from limited to general. Ripp v. UW & DER, 91-0057-PC, 11/14/91
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
The question of whether there was a significant change in appellant's position must be considered within the meaning of the word "significant" and the facts of the case. "Significant" is a relative term and need not indicate any particular quantum, save that it expresses some meaning of importance. The particular changes and increases in appellant's duties caused her position to be comparable to other positions at the higher classification level. To that degree, the changes in her position were significant. Gilbert v. DOA & DER, 90-0397-PC, 8/16/91
Any degree of change can satisfy §ER 3.01(3), Wis. Adm Code, as long as it results in sufficient "strengthening" of a position to elevate it from one classification level to another. Dombrowski v. UW & DER, 88-0054-PC, 11/30/88
Where the assignment of new higher level duties to the appellant's position was logical but not gradual, the position was properly reallocated rather than reclassified. Shorey v. DILHR & DER, 87-0070-PC, 2/1/88
A logical and gradual change occurred over several years, involving changes in the appellant's duties and in the treatment center's resident care delivery system. During the period since a prior reclassification, the appellant's position expanded as the center made significant organizational and programmatic changes and, the responsibilities extended from one discipline, social services, to all non-medical disciplines, including occupational and physical therapy. Knight v. DER, 85-0178-PC, 9/17/86
The Commission found that additional duties were gradually assigned to the appellant (once she acquired greater familiarity with the program) after the death of the person who had previously been responsible for the program. A third employe had assumed the responsibilities for the program immediately following the co-worker's death. Maher (Eisely) v. DHSS & DER, 85-0192-PC, 9/4/86
No logical and gradual change was found where there was a lack of sufficient information regarding the specific percentages of time assigned to the various changes in the appellant's duties and responsibilities and where there were certain conflicts between the testimony of the appellant and her supervisor as to when new duties were assumed. Haak v. DHSS & DER, 85-0130-PC, 4/30/86
In determining whether there has been a logical and gradual change, restricting the analysis to written position descriptions is neither warranted by, nor compatible with, the civil service code. While, in a particular case, it may be impossible for the secretary of DER to accurately determine the proper classification or whether changes have been logical and gradual, these decisions are to be made if the evaluation of the position may be determined from reasonably reliable sources. Haak v. DHSS & DER, 85-0130-PC, 4/30/86
Appellant was not entitled to reallocation of his position from Administrative Assistant 2 to 3 where, as a result of the consolidation of two divisions within DHSS, appellant was reassigned from his old Area Services Specialist 2 position in the Division of Economic Assistance to an Administrative Assistant position with new duties in the Division of Community Services and where the new duties upon reassignment represented a change of more than 50% of appellant's former duties. Given this abrupt change, a new position was effectively created, requiring competition to fill it. Chase v. DER, 85-0033-PC, 3/13/86
Appellant's duties and responsibilities in an inmate property officer position underwent a logical and gradual change after appellant first filled the newly created position via a job posting process and there was no dispute that at the time it was filled the position was properly classified at the Officer 2 level. The Commission compared the duties and responsibilities of the appellant's position at the time of his reclassification request with those duties and responsibilities performed at the time he first began to fill the new position rather than with his duties and responsibilities in his former position. Engebregsten v. DHSS & DER, 85-0155-PC, 3/13/86
Appellant’s position developed logically and gradually between 1980 and 1982 where the functions were new at the time they were hired, the appellants were given more and more discretion and responsibility to make decisions concerning the functioning of the program and with respect to their contacts. Arndt v. Goehring v. DP, 82-251-PC, 9/13/85
Where appellant's responsibilities over an 11 month period changed so that instead of performing 10% at the higher level he performed over 50% at that level, the change was not gradual in light of the respondent's "waiting period" guideline requiring him 1) to perform all of the duties for at least six months prior to the reclass request and 2) to perform the duties constituting the "base for final change" for at least six months before the final change. Usabel v. DER, 84-0005-PC, 12/6/84
There was no logical and gradual change where the assumption of the responsibility for cooperative raising of walleyes by DNR's north central district was sudden, there was not a great deal of lead time, it was not possible to integrate the project with the regular programs of the district and appellant was assigned to coordinate the program. Dobratz v. DNR & DP, 82-40-PC, 2/9/83
Logical and gradual change was found in a minimum-security correctional setting where the number of residents increased, the staffing and reporting relationships changed and program aspects of the shaft supervisor increased and despite an overnight change in organizational structure from a correctional camp to a correctional institution. Eschenfeldt v. DP & DHSS, 78-257-PC, 7/22/81; affirmed except as to remedy by Dane County Circuit Court, DHSS & DP v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Eschenfeldt), 81-CV-5126, 4/27/83
Where the duties and responsibilities of appellants' positions changed as a result of certain distinct program changes implemented by management, it was held that there was no logical and gradual change pursuant to Pers. 3.02(4), Wis. Adm. Code. Blood v. DP, 78-278-PC, 12/17/79
403.12(12) Class specifications as binding
Where a rating panel convened after new class specifications had been adopted did not rely on the relevant specifications as written and approved, the classification decisions reached by the panel had limited utility as far as proving guidance on the proper interpretation of the specification language or the proper classification of appellant’s positions. The basic authority for classifying positions is the classification specifications as they are written and approved by DER and actions taken by DER which are inconsistent with the classification specifications are not binding on the Commission. 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
It is inconsistent for an appellant to concede a class specification was written for a particular position and then to argue that a different specification is a better fit. Hertel v. DER, 94-0348-PC, 10/16/95
In a progression series, where positions were initially reallocated into a progression series based upon a proposed chart for converting the prior classifications into the new classifications based on length of service of the incumbents in positions, but where the length of service criteria were not included in the new class specifications, the language of the class specifications controlled in the event of any conflict between the length of service and the criteria in the class specification. Cutts v. DER, 92-0472-PC, 7/24/95
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
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 classification of supervisory positions based on the pay ranges of their subordinate positions was prevalent throughout the state classification system and was explicitly written into the relevant class specification, the Commission lacked the authority to essentially rewrite those specifications on the basis of perceptions of equity. Costa & Hollister v. DER, 92-0459, 0460-PC, 5/16/94
In a reallocation appeal, the appellant must identify an alternative classification which s/he feels better describes the position than the class level assigned by respondent. The Commission dismissed an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the appellant agreed that he was reallocated to the most appropriate classification, but felt the class specifications were flawed. Kiefer v. DER, 92-0634-PC, 5/2/94
The Commission is limited to applying the class specifications as written by the Department of Employment Relations and lacks the authority to rewrite the specifications. Edwards v. DER, 92-0423-PC, 11/29/93
The classification process requires consistency in the application of clearly defined and stated standards and does not permit informal modification of the language of the definition section of the classification specifications, either by the Commission or by DER. Lautz v. DER, 91-0091-PC, 6/23/93
The discretionary decisions made by the rating panel in the survey process to apply the 10 WQES factors, match positions and establish allocation patterns will not be second-guessed by the Commission. Schmidt v. DER, 90-0246-PC, 3/10/93
Based on the definitions of Architect/Engineer Manager 2 and 3 contained in the class specifications and a comparison to other positions, the Commission concluded that appellant's position was incorrectly reallocated to the 2 level even though appellant's position was identified as a "representative" 2 level position in the class specifications. A reallocation decision with respect to a specific position is not insulated from any meaningful review under §230.44(1)(b) because DER decided to include the position in the class specification as a representative position. Eagon v. DER, 90-0398-PC, 3/23/92
Language in the specifications cannot be ignored when making a classification decision. The Commission rejected the appellant's suggestion that if one word would be ignored, his position would fit the specifications at at the higher level. The appellant's position was specifically identified at the lower level. Mertens v. DER, 90-0237-PC, 8/8/91
Survey job content questionnaires were discoverable on reallocation appeals, even though the Commission lacks authority to review "survey methodology" per se, because the questionnaires were relevant to the evaluation of appellant's positions on the basis of the classification factors in question. Also, based on the record of the motion to compel discovery, it appeared respondent used the survey rating panel scores to determine the relative ranking of the positions surveyed, and then classification specifications were developed directly from the position descriptions of the positions so evaluated. Therefore, to the extent that the information sought on this discovery request ran to an attempt by appellants to show that the panel's factor evaluation was erroneous and resulted in their positions being placed in the wrong cluster and hence at the lower class level than should have been the case, it fell within the boundaries of relevance to a reallocation appeal and was properly discoverable. Mincy et al. v. DER, 90-0229, 0257-PC, 2/21/91 (ruling by examiner); rehearing denied, 3/12/91
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
Classification specifications should prevail over equitable considerations or instances of improper application of the specifications. Lulling & Arneson v. DER, 88-0136, 0137-PC, 9/13/89
Where, in the opinion of the Commission, the absence of a word in the classification definition was due to an oversight, the omission was remedied by supplying the missing word, in keeping with principles of statutory construction and to avoid an absurd result. It is appropriate to use a relatively more liberal approach to construction of a provision in an administrative enactment such as class specifications which have not been promulgated with the formality required of a statute or administrative rule. Jenkins v. DOR & DER, 88-0061-PC, 5/31/89
The Commission does not have the authority to rewrite a position standard to create a new category of state park or forest not recognized in the standard, but must apply the existing standard to the duties and responsibilities of a position to determine the correctness of the decision it is reviewing, citing Zhe et al. v. DHSS & DP, 80-285-PC, 11/19/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Zhe et al. v. PC, 81-CV-6492, 11/2/82. There are cases where parts of a position standard become outmoded over the course of time and as circumstances change, and then classification decisions may be based on the more general concepts reflected in the position standard, as opposed to outmoded specific sections, such as allocation patterns. No sections of the 1985 position standard in question were found to be outmoded. Brandt v. DNR & DER, 87-0155-PC, 11/3/88; Eldred v. DNR & DER, 87-0158-PC, 11/3/88; Leith v. DNR & DER, 87-0154-PC, 11/3/88
The pay levels of subordinate positions do not set a classification minimum for a supervisory position. Critchley v. UW & DER, 86-0037-PC, 1/8/87
Where a series is specifically designed to encompass positions such as the appellants, it would be inappropriate to substitute a "catch-all" series used only in the absence of a specific classification describing the position. Danielski et al. v. DER, 85-0196-PC, 9/17/86
The Commission lacks the authority to consider the appellant's argument, raised in his reclassification appeal, that the position standards adopted as a consequence of a personnel survey should have recognized the duties of nursery superintendents as being at a higher level than where they were explicitly allocated in the positions standards that were adopted. Borkenhagen v. DER, 85-0076-PC, 5/15/86
The Commission rejected the respondent's contention that advancement from the Officer 2 to Officer 3 level cannot be accomplished by means of reclassification in the absence of specific authority in the specifications rules or statutes to support that contention. Engebregsten v. DHSS & DER, 85-0155-PC, 3/13/86
The appellant was not entitled to reclassification based upon seven position descriptions alleged by appellant to be 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
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
The Commission must apply existing class specifications and position standards as they have been approved by the personnel board and lacks the authority to reclassify a position or regrade an employe merely on a theory that such an action would compensate for problems or inequities in the class specifications. Kennedy et al. v. DP, 81-180,etc-PC, 1/6/84
The Commission lacks the authority to consider, on an appeal of a reclassification denial, the appropriateness of the language found in position standards. Wambold v. DILHR & DP, 82-161-PC, 1/20/83
Even though the appellants showed that the current class specifications were outdated and created salary inequities, the Commission has no authority to update the class specifications but is bound by those currently in effect. Zhe et al. v. DHSS & DP, 80-285-PC, 11/19/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Zhe et al. v. PC, 81-CV-6492, 11/2/82
403.12(13) Effective date
Because the Commission could not apply the doctrine of res judicata with respect to a settlement agreement entered into by the previous position incumbent and the respondent, the proper effective date was in 1983. The position in question had been reallocated in 1979 to the Natural Resources Administrator 3 classification. That decision was appealed and the appeal was held in abeyance pending the results of a second survey that covered two peer positions in other agencies. The second survey resulted in the issuance of a new Research and Analysis position standards with an announced effective date in 1983 and the two peer positions were reallocated to a higher level upon the adoption of the new position standard. The Commission held that the Research and Analysis position standard was intended to be prospective only and not to have a retroactive effect and, therefore, concluded that the correct effective date for reallocating the position in question to the NRA 3 level was also 1983, rather than 1979. This result would have been different if, instead of establishing a new position standard in 1983, the respondent had merely reinterpreted existing positions standards and concluded that based on those standards the two peer positions were better classified at a higher level. DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Klepinger), Dane County Circuit Court, 85-CV-3022, 12/27/85; reversing in part, Klepinger v. DER, 83-0197-PC, 5/9/85
Where it was undisputed that respondent central personnel office received the reclassification request on May 22nd, the effective date of the request was the beginning of the first pay period following receipt of the request rather than two years earlier, when he was assigned certain responsibilities. Respondent did not preclude appellant from preserving an effective reclassification date where it was undisputed that respondent provided appellant with an employe handbook which contained information about determining reclassification effective dates and appeal rights relating to reclassification requests. Abdulghani v. DOT & DER, 96-0143-PC, 11/7/97
In order for material to qualify as a supervisor-initiated request for a classification review, the documentation supporting the request must be approved by the supervisor. A submission by appellant’s supervisor to the personnel unit was not characterized by the supervisor as a request for reclassification of appellant’s position, the accompanying documentation did not indicate that either the position description or the supporting memorandum had been approved by the supervisor and the personnel unit interpreted the submission as merely a request for an informal classification review. Appellant failed to show that she was misled by respondents as to the status of the review of the classification of her position. Weber v. DOCom & DER, 95-0168-PC, 4/24/97
Where the requirements for reclassification from Youth Counselor 1 to 2 included employment for a minimum of 2 years as a YC 1 and passing an open book exam conducted under the auspices of the American Correctional Association, appellant was first employed as a YC 1 on July 6, 1993 and took the ACA exam in late June or early July of 1995 but did not receive a passing grade, appellant’s position was properly reclassified to the YC 2 level effective October 29, 1995, which was the beginning of the pay period following notification on October 16th that appellant had passed the ACA exam on his second attempt. Appellant could have requested the ACA course and exam materials on an earlier date, such as six months prior to July of 1995, so that if he did fail the exam on the first attempt and passed it on the second, he still could have completed all of the reclassification requirements by July 6th, the two year anniversary of his hire date. Steber v. DHSS & DER, 96-0002-PC, 6/25/96
The appellant was properly held to compliance with his employing agency's written requirements relating to the processing of employe-initiated reclassification requests, where there had been no showing that the employing agency's requirements were inconsistent or ambiguous in any relevant respect. Carlin v. DHSS & DER, 94-0207-PC, 6/22/95 and Spilde v. DER, 86-0040-PC, 10/9/86 were distinguished. Enghagen v. DPI & DER, 95-0123-PC, 4/4/96
Even though the effective date of a 1994 reclassification of the appellant's position was several pay periods after the date appellant submitted his reclass request to his supervisor, in contrast to his 1991 reclassification request which was effective the pay period immediately following the submission of the request to his supervisor, the appellant did not rebut respondents' assertion that both effective dates were consistent with the agency's policy to key the effective date to the receipt, by the agency's personnel unit, of the necessary reclassification request materials, including a position description signed by the supervisor. Enghagen v. DPI & DER, 95-0123-PC, 2/15/96; rehearing denied, 4/4/96
Equitable estoppel was not present where appellant made certain assumptions based on the experience he had in 1991 in submitting a reclassification request, he relied on those assumptions in filing his 1994 request and the assumptions turned out to be incorrect. The assumptions were not attributable to respondents but were attributable to appellant and respondents were not held accountable for them. Enghagen v. DPI & DER, 95-0123-PC, 2/15/96; rehearing denied, 4/4/96
Appellant was not entitled to reclassification in a progression series merely by satisfying the minimum requirement of 24 months in an entry level position, where he transferred from one institution to a second institution within the initial 24 month period, the criteria for reclassification also required the employe to have completed necessary training and to be functioning at an adequate level of performance, administrative rule requires an employe to perform at the higher level for a minimum of 6 months and the programs and populations at the two institutions differed so that the second position was not equivalent to the initial position. Respondent's policy not to count the initial 12 weeks spent in new employe orientation and on-the-job training at the second institution was reasonable because during this period, the appellant was not performing under general supervision. Mayer et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0002-PC, 12/7/95
Even if a supervisor had informed the appellant that he would receive a reclassification after he passed his six month permissive probation, such a statement could not have nullified a contrary policy of the agency that was consistent with both the civil service code and the requirements of the classification specifications. Mayer et al. v. DHSS & DER, 95-0002-PC, 12/7/95
Generally, the Commission will not hold an employe to procedural details related to filing a reclassification request which are not reasonably known to the employe. Carlin v. DHSS & DER, 94-0207-PC, 6/22/95
Respondent established that the effective date of a reclassification request was determined by the date the request was received by the employing unit's personnel office, where this measurement of the effective date was recited both in the agency's employe manual and its supervisory manual. Carlin v. DHSS & DER, 94-0207-PC, 6/22/95
An effective date earlier than would be established under general policies was accepted where it had been recommended by the employing agency as a means to compensate for a delayed referral by the agency to DER. Burnson v. DER, 92-0096, 0847-PC, 10/24/94
The proper effective date of appellant's regrade after reallocation was the 1991 date he became the incumbent in the position via a transfer where the previous incumbent appealed a 1990 reallocation decision that was not decided in his favor until 1993, after he vacated the position and appellant was serving in the position. The Commission rejected respondent's contention that the higher class level of the position would invalidate the appellant's transfer in 1991 and would require him to compete for the higher classified position. The reallocation decision in 1993 did not have a retroactive effect with respect to the transfer, a different type of personnel transaction. Zentner v. DER, 93-0032-PC, 6/23/94
Where the record established that the appellant had not begun fully performing the higher level duties until January 1, 1991, the appellant's position was correctly reclassified effective June 30, 1991. Bernier v. DNR & DER, 92-0792-PC, 4/19/94
Until the appellant had satisfied the training requirements specified to gain reclassification as part of a progression series, she was not entitled to reclassification. The Commission did not address appellant's contentions that the training requirements were unnecessary in light of her work experience. Barkus v. DHSS & DER, 91-0254-PC, 92-0205-PC, 6/25/93
Although the key changes to the appellant's position occurred as a result of a reorganization in 1985, the respondents' decision establishing an effective date in 1990 was affirmed where that date was based upon the respondents' receipt of the appellant's reclass request. Even though the appellant did not receive a copy of the certification request/report which was prepared for his position at the time of the 1985 reorganization, he did sign a revised position description in 1986 which reflected both his new duties and a classification level the same as before the reorganization. Appellant could have initiated a reclassification or reallocation request at any time once he was assigned the new responsibilities in order to freeze the effective date. Phelps v. DOR & DER, 91-0003-PC, 5/20/93
The effective date for the reclassification of the appellants' positions was properly based upon receipt of their reclass request rather than on the effective date applied to two other positions performing similar duties, citing Popp v. DER, 88-0002-PC, 3/8/89. Regan & Blumer v. DOT & DER, 92-0211, 0256-PC, 4/23/93
Appellant failed to establish that she was induced not to file a reclass request where she was well aware of the steps required to get a request formally recognized and reviewed and was well aware that her supervisors were not pursuing the reclassification of her position. Vollmer v. UW & DER, 89-0056-PC, 3/19/93
It was unrealistic to impose on program managers or campus personnel directors the duty to maintain up-to-date knowledge of each new interpretation of a position standard made by DER. The failure to acquire such knowledge and communicate it to the appellant did not constitute fraud or a manifest abuse of discretion. Vollmer v. UW & DER, 89-0056-PC, 3/19/93
Section 230.09(2)(a), Stats., does not require DER to notify appointing authorities whenever an alternative allocation pattern is developed. An alternative allocation pattern results from an interpretation by DER of the existing language of classification specifications where such language does not literally describe the duties and responsibilities of a given position. In contrast, a change in the language of the classification specifications would clearly require formal action and notice by DER pursuant to §230.09, Stats. Vollmer v. UW & DER, 89-0056-PC, 3/19/93
Actions and inactions by appellant's supervisor and personnel manager led appellant to believe that his reclassification request was pending in the personnel office and that no further action by him was necessary. Equitable estoppel elements were established. Mergen v. UW & DER, 91-0247-PC, 11/13/92
The preponderance of the evidence supported appellant's contention that he was responsible for a medium rather than a small computer system by January 1, 1987, thereby meeting the classification requirements at the higher level. Pursuant to §ER 3.015(3)(b), Wis. Adm. Code, the actual effective date for the reclassification of appellant's position and his regrade for salary purposes was set at six months thereafter. Mergen v. UW & DER, 91-0247-PC, 11/13/92
Appellant was not entitled to an effective date based upon his verbal request to his supervisor concerning reclassification of his position. Appellant was repeatedly told by his supervisor during a two-year period that his position was not at the higher level but the supervisor never advised the appellant that he needed to file a written request to preserve his desired effective date. The personnel manager for the unit explained to appellant the process for filing a reclass request on his own, said nothing about the need to file a written request to preserve an effective date and said a request initiated by the supervisor had a better chance of approval. The elements of equitable estoppel were not present. Jones v. DHSS & DER, 90-0370-PC, 7/8/92
While management has a duty not to mislead an employe, it does not have a general obligation to inform an employe of his or her rights. Management failed to inform appellant of the implications as to effective date if he failed to submit a written reclass request, but management was not under a mandatory obligation to have done so. Jones v. DHSS & DER, 90-0370-PC, 7/8/92
Respondents' decision setting the effective date as the first day of the first pay period following approval of the class specifications by the Secretary of DER, was upheld. Lange et al. v. DOT & DER, 90-0118-PC, etc., 6/11/92
Where changes which resulted in the reclassification of the appellants' positions were changes in the duties and responsibilities of appellants' positions, not changes in the applicable position standard and where such changes in the duties and responsibilities of appellants' positions occurred prior to November of 1989, the operative date for determining the effective date of the reclassification of appellants' positions should have been the date the appellants filed their request for reclassification in April of 1990. Pflug et al. v. DNR & DER, 90-0414-PC, etc., 11/6/91
Respondents were equitably estopped from utilizing an effective date based on when appellants submitted their formal written reclassification requests where appellants established that for several years prior thereto, respondent DHSS had induced the appellants to take no action on their own behalf by representing that management was taking care of their reclassification concerns. Management was actively engaged in trying to stall the appellants in their efforts to obtain the higher classification in order to attempt to protect certain federal funding which was understood by management to be tied to the number of positions in the lower classification. Locke et al. v. DHSS & DER, 90-0384-PC, 7/11/91
Where, on January 26th, a union representative had raised the question of the classification of the appellant's position to the UW Classified Personnel Office and had been advised that it was not necessary for the appellant to follow up the representative's classification request with a letter, the appellant was entitled to rely on the statement made by the Classified Personnel Office and the Commission concluded that the effective date of the request was January 26th. However, the appellant's prior discussions with his supervisor were not specific enough to constitute a formal request for reclassification review under the respondent's effective date policy. Seay v. DER, 89-0117-PC, 1/24/91
Appellant was entitled to rely on the language of a memo from her employing agency which indicated that the effective date would be no later than 30 days from the date the supervisor received the appellant's written request, even though the memo was, in part, inconsistent with the effective date policy established by DER. Schmidt v. Sec. of State & DER, 89-0129-PC, 1/11/91
Appellant's discussions with her supervisor about updating her position description were not specific enough to constitute a formal request for a classification review because they did not comply with DER's effective date policy or with a memo from the appellant's employing agency which also discussed the procedure for obtaining reclassification. Schmidt v. Sec. of State & DER, 89-0129-PC, 1/11/91
Respondents' stipulated effective date was upheld where appellants' reclassification request was in fact being acted upon by the appellants' first and second level supervisors during the period in question and where, due to the very involved internal procedure for reviewing requests and the pendency of a new programmatic responsibility during the same period, 6 and 1/2 months to process the transaction was not excessive. The effective date policy in ch. 332 of the Wisconsin Personnel Manual, on which the respondents relied, has a rational basis in administrative certainty and convenience and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Nesse & Cleary-Hinz v. UW & DER, 90-0126, 0127-PC, 10/4/90
Although the letter granting the reclassification of the appellant's position to Program Assistant 3 in 1987 explicitly stated that a decision in 1985 to reclassify the position to the PA 2 level was erroneous and that the position should have been made a PA 3 at that time, the respondent's decision establishing the effective date in 1987 rather than in 1985 was not an abuse of discretion where it relied on a policy which is premised on administrative convenience and which places the onus on the employe to come forward with a reclassification or reallocation request if he or she believes such action is warranted and sees nothing forthcoming from the appointing authority or DER. The respondent's decision had the same rational basis in administrative convenience as did the overall policy. The fact that the respondent did not explicitly advise the appellant of her appeal rights in 1985 did not estop the respondent from applying its general policy because the respondent did not mislead the appellant as to her appeal rights and the respondent did not have a legal obligation to advise the appellant of her appeal rights. Popp v. DER, 88-0002-PC, 3/8/89
The appellant was not entitled to rely, for the purpose of establishing the proper effective date for reclassifying appellant's position, on a settlement agreement entered into by other employes and by the respondents. Even if he could rely on the settlement, appellant was not on the same footing as the employes who had signed the settlement agreement because appellant never had received certain formal training given the other employes to permit them to perform at the higher classification level, even though those employes received the training after the effective date of their reclassification. Thompson v. DOT & DER, 88-0037-PC, 11/23/88
Respondent was estopped from arguing that an earlier effective date for appellant's reclassification/regrade was precluded by the fact she did not submit a written reclassification request to UW-M personnel office before March 9, 1987, where appellant had repeatedly voiced her concerns about the classification of her position, including a letter to her department head, and management gave every indication that appellant's concerns would be addressed and never suggested a need to submit a written request. The employe handbook failed to identify a requirement that requests be filed in writing to the personnel office. Warda v. UW-Milwaukee & DER, 87-0071-PC, 6/2/88
There was insufficient credible evidence on which to base a finding that the duties and responsibilities of appellant's position were at the higher level on any date prior to the date established by respondent. Warda v. UW-Milwaukee & DER, 87-0071-PC, 6/2/88
Where an initial reclass request was followed over a year later by a second reclass request that was accompanied by a substantially revised position description and by reclassification analysis forms, there were very substantial changes in the position between the two reclass requests and there was no basis for a finding that the first request, standing alone, would have supported the higher classification, the agency's decision to use the date of the second request as the basis for calculating the effective date for reclassification was a proper application of ch. 332, Wis. Personnel Manual. Even if the provisions of the Personnel Manual were ignored, there was an inadequate record for concluding that appellant actually began to perform at the higher level on a date that would warrant an effective date earlier than that actually established, especially in light of the requirement of §ER-Pers 3.01(3), Wis. Adm. Code, that permanently assigned duties be performed by the incumbent for at least six months prior to a regrade. Smart v. UW & DER, 87-0215-PC, 5/12/88
Language in the DNR Manual Code was directory and, therefore, did not require a supervisor to initiate a reclassification request for a subordinate position. Baggott v. DNR & DER, 87-0012-PC, 12/23/87; aff'd by Dane County Circuit Court, Baggott v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 88-CV-0366, 8/11/88
There was no fraud or manifest abuse of discretion as to advice given by respondent's personnel specialist to appellant's supervisor not to initiate reclassification requests for appellant's position. Therefore, equitable estoppel did not lie with respect to respondent's decision setting a later effective date for the reclassification of appellant's position. Baggott v. DNR & DER, 87-0012-PC, 12/23/87; aff'd by Dane County Circuit Court, Baggott v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 88-CV-0366, 8/11/88
The proper effective date for the reclassification of the appellant's position was September of 1986 which arose from the only written reclassification request he had initiated. The appellant had made previous verbal requests for reclassification but respondent had notified appellant that these requests would not be processed or acted upon and appellant failed to appeal respondent's action. Baggott v. DNR & DER, 87-0012-PC, 12/23/87; aff'd by Dane County Circuit Court, Baggott v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 88-CV-0366, 8/11/88
Respondents were required to reclassify the appellant's positions more than two years earlier than when respondent received appellant's written reclassification request where appellants were mislead by management's conduct into assuming their verbal reclassification requests were adequate. Guzniczak & Brown v. DHSS & DER, 83-0210, 0211-PC, 5/13/87; petition for rehearing granted and decision reaffirmed, 6/11/87
The failure of respondent's employes to have informed the appellants they were required to submit their reclassification requests in writing, under circumstances which suggested their verbal requests were being acted upon, could be characterized as a ministerial error attributable to management and provided a basis for rejecting the effective date established by the respondent based on the ultimate receipt of written reclass requests. Guzniczak & Brown v. DHSS & DER, 83-0210, 0211-PC, 5/13/87; petition for rehearing granted and decision reaffirmed, 6/11/87
Respondent had effective receipt of appellant's reclassification request where appellant submitted written request for same, notwithstanding it was submitted to her supervisor as opposed to the personnel office and did not have attached to it all the desired supporting documentation, where she was not told that she had to do anything else, and there is nothing in the civil service code or even in written agency policy requiring same. Spilde v. DER, 86-0040-PC, 10/9/86
Where appellant requested reclassification of her position in 1981 and left the position in 1983 prior to any action on her request or the establishment of an effective date for reclassification, tile transaction was not rendered moot by the operation of §ER-Pers 3.03(4), Wis. Adm. Code, since this only operates if an employe leaves the position prior to the effective date of the transaction. Spilde v. DER, 86-0040-PC, 10/9/86
Where the appellant had transferred to position "A", and the duties she performed were only assigned to her on a temporary basis, and then transferred to position "B", where she subsequently (June 1, 1984) performed work at a higher level, appellant could only be regraded after performing the higher level permanently assigned duties for at least six months, i.e., on December 1, 1984, and the appellant's position was properly reclassified with an effective date of December 1, 1984. §ER-Pers. 3.015(3), Wis. Adm. Code. Mund v. DILHR & DER, 84-0213-PC, 11/7/85
Where the appellant showed that respondent's performance analysis that served as the basis for respondent's reclassification decision was incorrect, the effective date of her reclassification should be the date the appellant would have been reclassified if she had not been given a failing score on the performance analysis. Foust v. DILHR & DER, 84-0218-PC, 5/22/85; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DILHR & DER v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 85-CV-3206, 7/29/86
Where appellant's reclassification was delayed from Officer I to Officer 2 because progression from the I level to 2 level requires a "formal discipline free work record" for six months prior to the reclassification target date, the officer investigating an allegation of misconduct, in recommending discipline, was not required to have advised the appellant in writing that the reclassification of his position would be affected by the imposition of discipline. Pero v. DHSS & DER, 83-0235-PC, 4/25/85
Where the issue for hearing in an appeal arising from the decision establishing the effective date for reclassification referred to whether September 16, 1984 was proper or, if not, whether it should have been October 30, 1983, the Commission established December 12, 1983 as the correct effective date, concluding that it fell within the range of dates that were implicit within the issue for hearing. The issue for hearing was found to provide adequate notice to the parties. Wentz v. DER, 84-0068-PC, 3/5/85
The determining factor in deciding the appropriate effective date for the reclassification of the appellant's position was the date he was given total responsibility for coordinating a specific department-wide program. That responsibility was assigned during a meeting with the department secretary. The fact that written confirmation from the secretary was not obtained until three months later and that the duty did not show up on appellant's position description until sometime later is not determinative. Wentz v. DER, 84-0068-PC, 1/17/85
Where appellants submitted reclassification requests along with supporting documentation in November and December of 1982, where in February of 1982, respondent determined that the materials did not support reclassifications and facilitated the submission of revised materials, and where the revised materials were submitted on May 12, 1983, resulting in the reclassification of the appellant's positions, the Commission held that the effective date of the reclassification was late in 1982 rather than May of 1983. The respondent's policy setting the reclassification effective date as the start of the first pay period following "effective receipt" of the request does not mean the receipt of the request accompanied by supporting materials sufficient in themselves to warrant reclassification. Tiffany et al. v. DHSS & DER, 83-0225-PC, 7/6/84
The administrator of the Division of Personnel had the authority to reallocate the appellant's position retroactively to the date of his original decision reallocating the position to a different classification. Beane v. DP, 82-140-PC, 81-84-PC, 7/21/83
The respondents' determination of the effective date of the reclassification from Trooper II - Trooper III was rejected when it was affected by the decision of the deputy administrator of the State Patrol to delay approval of the action until the employe met the Measurable Standard of Activity (MSA), sole reliance on that criterion having been disapproved in earlier commission and court decisions. The Commission also held that it was within its province to examine the handling of the request at that level since even though the deputy administrator did not have the authority to finally approve the request, he could effectively delay the effective date by refusing to forward it to personnel, so his action was cognizable pursuant to §230.44(l)(b), Stats., as part of the overall reclassification action, and found that the amount of time taken to actually process the reclassification was not excessive. Michalski v. DOT, 82-228-PC, 6/9/83
The administrator's decision not to give his effective date policy of November 1, 1980, a retroactive effect so as to make a request for reclassification filed at the UW-Eau Claire campus on May 27, 1980, effective that date, was upheld as not violative of the civil service code as interpreted. Rumpel v. DP, 81-396-PC, 11/15/82
Appellants established that respondent administrator erred in establishing the effective date for reclassification of their position by failing to take into consideration the ministerial error committed by respondent DHSS while handling the reclassification requests pursuant to Pers. 3.03(2), Wis. Adm. Code, wherein the requests were lost and their processing delayed accordingly. Ulanski et al. v. DHSS & DP, 82-2,6,7,9-PC, 9/7/82
The Commission rejected the employe's arguments that the effective date policy violated §§230.01(2) and 230.09, Stats., inasmuch as it constitutes a reasonable promotion of administrative convenience and uniformity. Grinnell v. DP, 81-101-PC, 4/29/82
Where appellants' positions were reclassified with a certain effective date pursuant to ch. 334 (attachment #2), of the Wis. Personnel Manual, which calls for reclassifications to be effective at the start of the second pay period following receipt of the request within the agency at a level which has the authority to approve the request, and the parties agreed to the issue of whether this policy was correct, the Commission held that it could not consider the second issue, proposed by the appellants, of whether as a matter of public policy the positions should have been reclassified at an earlier date, as there had been no earlier request for reclassification. Loy et al. v. UW & DP, 81-421, 422, 423, 424, 425-PC, 3/19/82
Where the appellant completed the requisite training and experience for reclassification to Registered Nurse 2 but her supervisor did not report this on the correct form, the report was misfiled, and the resultant reclassification was delayed approximately one month, the Commission held that the appellant would be entitled to have the effective date of her reclassification adjusted accordingly in order to correct an error pursuant to §Pers 5.037, Wis. Adm. Code. Kimball v. DP & DHSS, 79-236-PC, 4/23/81
Where the appellant had notice on August 10, 1978, that no reclassification request was being processed, but took no action until August 14, 1979, when he filed a grievance which was treated as a request for reclassification which subsequently was denied and appealed to the Commission, the Commission would not consider an effective date earlier than August 14, 1979. Meinholz v. DOR & DP, 79-352-PC, 6/30/80
Where the appellant appealed a reclassification with an effective date of March 25, 1979, and sought an effective date of November 3, 1977, the Commission held in a prehearing order that it could not rule out in advance of hearing her entitlement to such an earlier date where based on certain documents she had submitted it was conceivable that she submitted her reclassification request on November 3, 1977, and did not receive a final disposition until March 1979, and where it could not be concluded that her failure to appeal a 1978 transfer was significant because there was no indication that the transfer involved an evaluation of the proper classification level of her position. Ebert v. DILHR & DP, 79-119-PC, 3/24/80
Where the appellant's position was reallocated effective July 2, 1978, and this was not appealed, and subsequently the appellant's reclassification request was denied and the appellant timely appealed that on August 1, 1979, the Commission could not consider his request for an effective date of July 2, 1978, notwithstanding appellant's argument that he only learned of facts that led him to believe the reallocation was improper some time after the date of the reallocation. Donahue v. DATCP & DP, 79-189-PC, 3/21/80
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.