[Previous material] [Next material]
522.01(1) Generally
Pleadings are to be treated as flexible and are to be liberally construed in administrative proceedings. Loomis v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 179 Wis. 2d 25, 505 N.W.2d 462 (Court of Appeals, 1993)
The failure of the appeal letter to contain specific details of appeal is not a violation of agency head's right to due process of law under Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution as constitutional protection does not extend to state officer in official capacity. Alff v. DOR, 78-227-PC, 1/18/79
Pleadings should be liberally construed and are not required to meet standards applicable to judicial pleadings. Oakley v. Comm. of Securities, 78-66-PC, 10/10/78
522.01(2) Compliance with rule
Failure of appeal to contain all information set forth in §PC 1.01(2), Wis. Adm. Code does not require dismissal of the appeal; this section is directory and not mandatory. Alff v. DOR, 78-227-PC, 1/18/79
522.01(3) Particular issues
An appeal of a suspension and a subsequent discharge pursuant to §230.44(1)(c), Stats., is not required to recite the statutory language that "the decision was not based on just cause." This holding was based on an examination of the dictionary definition of "allege," the requirement that pleadings in administrative proceedings are to be liberally construed, and a conclusion that the relevant statutory language is directory rather than mandatory. Cravillion v. Wis. Lottery, 91-0213-PC, 92-0004-PC, 5/7/93
The appeal of the effective date of promotion which was stated to be a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement is construed as an appeal pursuant to §230.44(i)(d), Stats. Wech v. DHSS, 79-310-PC, 1/14/80
Despite liberal rules of pleading, the appellant's representative was required to file what would amount to a bill of particulars where there were three separate letters of appeal filed by the appellant and two union officials and each raised some different grounds of error, and a subsequent letter from the party's representative made many conclusory allegations and alleged violations of numerous statutory and contractual provisions. Nigbor v. DVA, 79-125-PC, 12/4/79
So long as the appellant objected to the personnel action (transfer) during the course of his grievance proceedings, it was not necessary for him, during the first 3 steps of the procedure, to have specifically raised all those potential grounds for error that were ultimately set forth in a bill of particulars filed at the final step. Stasny v. DOT, 78-158-PC, 10/12/79; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DOT v. Wis. Pers. Comm. (Stasny), 79-CV-6102, 6130, 2/27/81
522.01(4) Amendments
The appellant was permitted to amend his original appeal letter two months after it was filed to add that the discharge being appealed from was not based on just cause. Huesmann v. State Historical Society, 82-67-PC, 8/5/82
Where the appellant sought to obtain enforcement of a settlement agreement that had been reached, he was prevented from amending his appeal to raise matters that he had not alleged in his original appeal. Ramsfield v. DNR, 78-164-PC, 8/30/79
Amendments relate back to time of filing original pleading if the claim asserted in amended pleading relates back to original transaction appealed. Fisk v. DOT, 79-83-PC, 1/23/80; Oakley v. Comm. of Securities, 78-66-PC, 10/10/78
Parties should be permitted a good deal of liberality in amending pleadings. Oakley v. Comm. of Securities, 78-66-PC, 10/10/78
522.03 Weight of administrative practice
A party before an administrative agency such as the Commission can anticipate that the agency will follow its precedents unless it provides a rational and reasonable basis for departing from them. However, if an agency takes a position contrary to a Commission precedent, while it presumably would be subject to rejection by the Commission, it would not be subject to the imposition of costs pursuant to §227.485, Stats., as long as it had a reasonable basis in law for its position. Pearson v. UW, 84-0219-PC, 2/12/97 B
Statements by respondent's employes that respondent has consistently interpreted an administrative rule as they did in the instant case was entitled to little weight where the appeal presented a very narrow issue, there was only one instance of a similar transaction during the 11 years the system was in place, and the other transaction was not the subject of administrative or judicial review. Dusso v. DER & DRL, 94-0490-PC, 3/7/96
522.05(1)(a) Elements
The right to assert equitable estoppel does not arise unless the party asserting it has acted with due diligence and the conclusion as to whether or not an employe has exercised due diligence is, in part, a function of the nature of the respondent's action. An employe has a substantially greater responsibility to investigate the employer's information or action when the information/action is adverse to the employe's interests. Fletcher v. ECB, 91-0134-PC, 12/23/91
In determining whether the appellant suffered a detriment, the appropriate focus is on whether, if respondent is not estopped, appellant would be in a worse position than before he acted in reliance on respondent's original salary representation rather than a focus on whether he will be in a worse position if he loses his case, and fails to establish estoppel, than if he wins. Kelling v. DHSS, 87-0047-PC, 3/12/91
522.05(1)(c) State conduct
Where the appellant, while employed as an Officer 1 in DHSS, had taken the Officer 3 competitive promotional exam in 1989, had been placed on the resulting register, and was ineligible for promotion to a position within DOC after January 1, 1990 because DOC was made a separate department at that time and the appellant's position had remained as part of DHSS, DOC's action of interviewing the appellant for a vacant Officer 3 position in June of 1990 resulted from an administrative error and there was no basis on which to conclude that respondent's actions resulted from fraud or a manifest abuse of discretion. DOC had issued a memo in January of 1990 announcing that an effort was being made to remove the names of DHSS employes appearing on DOC's agency-wide promotional registers and certification lists. Augustin v. DMRS & DOC, 90-0254-PC, 10/3/91
Where the appellant received information from the agency personnel manager regarding her projected salary for the next year, which, although given in good faith, was erroneous, and this influenced her to decide not to appeal a reallocation, the Commission found that there was no fraud or manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent, and hence equitable estoppel was not present as to the respondent, a state agency Ferguson v. DOJ & DP, 80-245-PC, 7/22/81
522.05(1)(d) Inference of reliance
Where the agency non-contractual grievance procedure provided that a transaction could be appealed directly or grieved, and appellants grieved, Commission will infer reliance on the directive even though there was no allegation of reliance by the appellants, who were not represented by counsel. Olson v. DHSS, 78-11, 8/28/78
522.05(1)(e) Source of misinformation
A person in the employing agency who was clearly functioning in a clerical capacity and who offered to do a purely clerical favor, to forward the appeal to the proper place, was not functioning as an arm of the Commission or of the Department of Employment Relations. There was no procedural aspect to the actions of the clerical employe that might place her actions within the scope of an instruction on petitioner's notice of reallocation to contact his agency's Personnel Officer, "If you have any question on the procedural aspects of filing an appeal." Complete reliance such as petitioner gave to the clerical employe was inadequate when working with hard and fast rules and regulatory agencies. Millard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93CV1523, 1/26/94
A receptionist in the DOT personnel office was not an agent of DER for purposes of the application of equitable estoppel merely because DER had provided in its notice of reallocation that: [i]f you have any questions on the procedural aspects of filing an appeal, please contact your agency Personnel Officer," and where the appellant asked the receptionist for the Commission's address and she gratuitously offered to have the appeal forwarded to the Commission. Millard v. DER, 92-0713-PC, 3/19/93; affirmed, Millard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93CV1523, 1/26/94
The doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot be applied where the conduct on which the appellant relied was the conduct of another state agency and not the respondent agency. Goeltzer v. DVA, 82-11-PC, 5/12/82
Estoppel does not lie against agency where the appellant was misinformed of his or her appeal rights by a union official. Bong and Seemann v. DILHR, 79-167-PC, 11/8/79; Snyder v. DHSS, 79-139-PC, 11/8/79; Thompson v. DHSS, 79-98-PC, 6/12/79
522.05(2) Claims denied
A person in the employing agency who was clearly functioning in a clerical capacity and who offered to do a purely clerical favor, to forward the appeal to the proper place, was not functioning as an arm of the Commission or of the Department of Employment Relations. There was no procedural aspect to the actions of the clerical employe that might place her actions within the scope of an instruction on petitioner's notice of reallocation to contact his agency's Personnel Officer, "If you have any question on the procedural aspects of filing an appeal." Complete reliance such as petitioner gave to the clerical employe was inadequate when working with hard and fast rules and regulatory agencies. Millard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93CV1523, 1/26/94
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's reliance was unreasonable where he chose to ignore the information provided by those with the authority to effectuate the reallocation of his position in favor of the information provided by his first-line supervisor who had no such authority. Meisenheimer v. DILHR & DER, 94-0829-PC, 4/28/95
Equitable estoppel did not apply in an appeal from a reclassification denial where it took respondent over 5 years to respond to the reclass request. Appellant failed to offer any support at hearing for the "detriment" he claimed to have suffered. Pettit v. DER, 92-0145-PC, 10/24/94; Miller v. DER, 92-0095, 0851-PC, 9/9/94; Riley v. DER, 92-0097, 0849-PC, 9/9/94
Appellant's reliance on a statement by a receptionist in the DOT personnel office that his appeal would be forwarded to the Commission was not reasonable and justifiable, where appellant was aware of the need for timely filing and understood from the receptionist's comments that the receptionist in effect was making a commitment on behalf of a third person who was on vacation and would not be returning for several days, which was during the period when appellant himself was going on vacation. Millard v. DER, 92-0713-PC, 3/19/93; affirmed, Millard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93CV1523, 1/26/94
A receptionist in the DOT personnel office was not an agent of DER for purposes of the application of equitable estoppel merely because DER had provided in its notice of reallocation that: [i]f you have any questions on the procedural aspects of filing an appeal, please contact your agency Personnel Officer," and where the appellant asked the receptionist for the Commission's address and she gratuitously offered to have the appeal forwarded to the Commission. Millard v. DER, 92-0713-PC, 3/19/93; affirmed, Millard v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 93CV1523, 1/26/94
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
Appellant reasonably relied on a statement made during the employment interview that the position would move to a pay range 12 level in approximately a year, but he did not establish that he suffered any detriment from respondents' conduct. There was no showing that respondents' conduct placed him in a worse position than before he acted in reliance on the statement, nor evidence that absent the statement, appellant would not have accepted the job offer. Gold v. UW & DER, 91-0032-PC, 6/11/92
Respondent's conduct of failing to specifically inform the appellant that its offer of employment was contingent on the receipt of satisfactory reference reports did not work a serious injustice to the appellant so as to outweigh the government's interest in hiring employes who are likely to perform well where, inter alia, the appellant had previously been advised of the reference requirement, respondent had indicated at the time of the offer that the offer was contingent upon a satisfactory physical exam and respondent made many efforts to contact the appellant after it received her unsatisfactory references. Skaife v. DHSS, 91-0133-PC, 12/3/91
The appellant did not rely to his detriment on DOC's invitation to interview him for a vacant Officer 3 position, even though the appellant was ineligible for appointment, where the only "detriment" the appellant claimed was that he expended time, energy and money to travel to and participate in the subject interview. DOC informed the appellant after the interview that he was not eligible for consideration for the position and the appellant was never offered an Officer 3 position. Augustin v. DMRS & DOC, 90-0254-PC, 10/3/91
There was no detriment to the appellant in going to work for respondent at $6.694 per hour even though the respondent had initially represented that his salary would be $7.481 per hour, where the appellant was unemployed at the time he was offered the job. Even though it could be argued that if the appellant had never left the job market he might have been offered and accepted a better job during the period of his employment with respondent, this is not clear and convincing evidence of a detriment. Kelling v. DHSS, 87-0047-PC, 3/12/91
Respondent's action establishing the appellant's starting salary was affirmed and appellant's assertion of equitable estoppel denied where there was no way that appellant's reliance could be said to have been to his detriment. Te Beest v. DHSS, 88-0086-PC, 5/16/90
Respondent's conduct in setting the rate of pay upon transfer/promotion did not amount to "a fraud or a manifest abuse of discretion" where as soon as the respondent discovered its error, it took steps to correct it and the appellant was given an opportunity to return to her prior position but declined. Respondent had advised the appellant that the transaction would be a promotion. However, as a consequence of the implementation of the Comparable Worth Plan approximately three months prior to the date of the transaction, the pay range of the classification of the appellant's prior position was upgraded. Respondent did not take the change into account until after the appellant had received a letter of appointment which continued to incorrectly identify the appointment as a promotion accompanied by a pay increase and after the appellant had begun working in the new position. Meschefske v. DHSS & DMRS, 88-0057-PC, 7/14/89
Respondent's action to reduce the appellant's starting salary after his appointment but before he received his first pay check was neither illegal nor an abuse of discretion, where the pay rate initially quoted to the appellant was incorrect. Before accepting the job offer, the appellant worked in the private sector. In reviewing the necessary elements of equitable estoppel, the Commission concluded that 1) the appellant's reliance on the wage rate contained in respondent's job offer was not "to his detriment" when there were reasons other than salary that prompted appellant to obtain state employment and there was no adverse pay effect at either pay rate as compared to his salary at his previous job and that 2) the respondent's conduct did not amount to fraud or to a manifest abuse of discretion. Taddey v. DHSS, 86-0156-PC, 5/5/88
Estoppel did not apply where the detriment to the appellant was speculative in nature. The appellant in a case relating to the effective date of a reclassification was informed by management that her transfer from position "A" to position "B" would not harm her eventual reclassification. Prior to her transfer, appellant was performing a temporary assignment and temporary assignments are not a basis for reclassification/regrade. Had she remained in position "A" the appellant would have begun performing higher level duties on a permanent basis some time but it was not clear whether those duties would have commenced before she in fact began performing higher level duties two months after her transfer. Mund v. DILHR & DER, 84-0213-PC, 11/7/85
Equitable estoppel did not lie against respondent DER in an appeal arising from 1983 reallocation decision where in 1979 the appellant had laterally transferred into his position and his new supervisor was concerned about the appropriate classification of the position. The supervisor had called DNR's Bureau of Personnel and followed up with a memo but never received a response and it was not known whether the appellant's position description was ever signed by DNR's personnel manager. The Commission held that the appellant could not justifiably rely on these facts to expect a perpetual classification of his position at a certain level. Eslien v. DER, 84-0020-PC, 8/1/84
The element of equitable estoppel that "after the inducement for delay has ceased to operate the aggrieved party may not unreasonably delay" was not present where the appellant waited until after a precedent-establishing court case had been decided and the time for its appeal had run before he filed his appeal with the Commission. Junceau v. DOR & DP, 82-112-PC, 10/14/82
No estoppel derived from the failure of the agency to advise of appeal rights under §230.44(l)(d), Stats. Bong and Seemann v. DILHR, 79-167-PC, 11/8/79
522.05(3) Claims affirmed
Where appellant relied on information given by respondent in deciding whether to tender a voluntary layoff letter or to pursue options in lieu of layoff, the information provided to appellant was incorrect resulting in the injury to appellant that she was deprived of demotion opportunities which appellant, as the most senior in her approved layoff group, would otherwise have had, and the application of the doctrine did not unduly harm the public's interests, equitable estoppel applied to prevent the respondent from relying on the appellant's voluntary layoff letter. Lyons v. WGC, 93-0206-PC, 12/5/94
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
Respondent's conduct in setting the rate of pay upon selection was "a fraud or a manifest abuse of discretion" where a contract was created pursuant to the letter of appointment which was sent to appellant showing his rate of pay as $8.522 per hour and making his appointment effective on February 2nd, and on February 11th, the appellant was informed that his rate of pay would be set at $8.352 as a result of legislation which became effective on February 1st. A reduction of the appellant's salary would work a severe injustice to the appellant if equitable estoppel were not applied. Appellant was awarded the higher level of pay until he received a raise which brought his pay above the $8.522 level. Siebers v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Outagamie County Circuit Court, 89 CV 00578, 11/9/89
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
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-Milwaukee's 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
Respondents were required to reclassify the appellant's positions more than two years earlier than when respondent received appellantts 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
Respondent DER abused its discretion and was equitably estopped from asserting an objection based on timeliness where the appellant's letter of appeal was addressed to the Commission but listed DER's post office box and where DER failed to forward the letter to the Commission during the two weeks that remained in the 30 day filing period. Toth v. DILHR & DER, 84-0009-PC, 2/29/84
Respondent was equitably estopped from asserting a jurisdictional objection based on timeliness of the appeal where the letter informing the appellant of his suspension stated that he could appeal the action to the Personnel Commission but gave the incorrect address for the Commission, and where the other elements for applying equitable estoppel existed. Zabel v. DOT, 82-137-PC, 7/24/82
Respondent was equitably estopped from arguing the reclassification appeal was untimely, due to its express written instruction to submit any review request to DOA's personnel office. Sharpe v. DOA & DP, 82-117-PC, 7/26/82
Where the appellant was appointed to a position with the respondent after she had been informed erroneously that she could transfer from her prior position with the legislature at not less than her salary with the legislature, the Commission held that the respondent was equitably estopped from relying on the civil service code to reduce appellant's salary several weeks after she began work for the respondent, where the appellant relied on the respondent's representation in accepting the appointment and the representation had been made after the respondent's agent had been told by a departmental personnel specialist that the appellant could transfer at the same salary level if the transfer were between positions in classes with the same pay rate or pay range maximum, and at the time of the agent's representation to the appellant he was not sure of her classification or her status within the civil service, which amounted to a constructive fraud or manifest abuse of discretion. Porter v. DOT, 78-154-PC, 5/14/79; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DOT v. Wis. Pers. Comm., (Porter), 79-CV-3420, 3/24/80)
Where the employing agency advised the employe he had 30 days to appeal a non-contractual grievance denial at the third step, the agency was estopped from arguing that the 15 day time limit contained in the APM containing standards for non-contractual grievance procedures applied. Wing v. UW, 78-159-PC, 4/19/79
Where an agency non-contractual grievance procedure stated that a transaction could be appealed directly or grieved, and the appellants filed a grievance and appealed the denial of the third step to the Commission, the agency was estopped from arguing that the appeal was untimely on the grounds that the transaction was directly appealable and should have been appealed in the first instance. Olson v. DHSS, 78-11, 8/28/78
522.05(4) Extent of application of estoppel
Where the appellant was hired at $11.736 per hour but it is conceded that due to equitable estoppel he should have been hired at $12.858 per hour, he is entitled to the pay differential only until the date a regrade brought him to $13.197, since even if he actually had been hired at $12.858, the regrade still would have been to $13.197. Phillips v. DILHR, 82-43-PC, 7/7/83
522.06 Double jeopardy
The doctrine of double jeopardy is inapplicable where appellant had been discharged, reinstated upon order of the Commission due to deficiencies in the letter of discharge, and discharged again. Therefore, in justifying the second discharge, the respondents were not barred from relying on events that provided the basis for the first (voided) discharge. Huesmann v. State Historical Society, 82-67-PC, 8/5/82
522.07 Conflict between statute and department rule, or failure to promulgate as rule
Paul v. DHSS & DMRS, 82-0156-PC, 82-PC-ER-67, 6/19/86
Where the respondent failed to promulgate criteria for participating in the Handicapped Expanded Certification program as administrative rules, the failure rendered the criteria invalid as they did not fit within any of the rule-making exceptions found in §227.01(13). Schaub v. DMRS, 90-0095-PC, 10/17/91
522.08 Interpretation of directives
A policy that was not directed at line staff and was informal and discretionary in nature was not an administrative rule because it was not "of general application." The policy was only applied by two individuals within respondent agency and it did not include absolute standards but required the exercise of considerable judgment on a case-by-case basis. Spaith v. DMRS, 89-0089-PC, 4/19/90
522.10 Representation (including unauthorized practice of law and appointment of counsel)
A party seeking disqualification of opposing counsel has the burden of establishing that counsel's continuation in the case would violate disciplinary rules, and a motion to disqualify should not be granted without a clear showing that continued representation is impermissible, citing Zions First Natl. Bank v. United Health Clubs, 505 F. Supp. 138 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Balele v. DNR et al., 95-0029-PC-ER, 6/22/95
Disqualification of agency counsel was not justified at the prehearing stage where counsel had denied having any involvement whatsoever in the hiring which was the subject matter of the proceeding and it was not clear whether counsel would be called as a witness at hearing. Complainant alleged that counsel had made statements, to others, of a discriminatory nature. Balele v. DNR et al., 95-0029-PC-ER, 6/22/95
An attorney for DER was not disqualified because of previous contacts with an employe from representing an agency in litigation against the employe. The attorney previously had been employed at Wis. Lottery, and when she left to go into private practice she handed out business cards to many lottery employes, including complainant. She also had a conversation with complainant at the time she gave him her card in which he said he was concerned about his employment with the Lottery and would commence legal action if the matter wasn't resolved, but no representation or further contacts between them ensued. Complainant also contended that the attorney might be a witness, but failed to identify anything of substance about which she might testify. Pierce v. Wis. Lottery & DER, 91-0136-PC-ER-A, 9/17/93
The Commission is not authorized to appoint counsel for a complainant. Cleary v. UW-Madison, 84-0048-PC-ER, 11/21/85
522.15 Amicus curiae briefs
The authority to consider an amicus curiae brief is well within the Commission's implied powers relating to the hearing procedure. Southwick v. DHSS, 85-0151-PC, 8/6/86
522.20 Ministerial vs. discretionary acts
Equitable estoppel did not lie with respect to respondent DER’s calculation of appellant’s starting wage upon restoration to a position in the classified service, where even though the Commission ultimately disagreed with DER’s calculation of that wage, DER had an arguable basis for its calculation. Appellant had not relied upon a more prompt response by DER. Dusso v. DER & DRL, 94-0490-PC, 5/28/96; petition for rehearing denied, 7/23/96
If an act to be performed by a public official is ministerial, the official is required to comply with the statutory requirement, and does not have the same latitude as does an official faced with the performance of a discretionary act. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96
The question of whether to allow a nonresident to compete for a position does not require the exercise of discretion, because the controlling statute clearly prohibited it in the absence of a determination of a critical need. Smith v. DMRS, 90-0032-PC, 8/3/95; explained further in ruling on request for reconsideration, 1/5/96; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court; Smith v. Shaw et al., 90 CV 5059, 96 CV 283, 12/10/96
523 Declaratory rulings
The Commission declined to grant a request for declaratory ruling seeking to challenge the validity of an administrative rule where the appellant made no argument why the issue could not be considered in the context of a previously-filed civil service appeal arising from the transaction giving rise to the rule challenge and appellant had, in fact', stated that if the petition for declaratory ruling was denied, he would file a motion seeking the same result within the parameters of the cases already pending. Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Ronald L. Paul), 84-0158-PC, 10/11/84
The Commission has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling on the issue of whether an employe who is reinstated after an unlawful termination is entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses, overtime premium pay and holiday premium pay which would have been earned absent the improper discharge. However, jurisdiction under §227.06, Stats., is discretionary in nature and the Commission is not compelled to grant the request for a declaratory ruling. Request for Declaratory Ruling, 78-37, 8/29/78
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.