Opinion ID: 2106359
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Board's Jurisdiction.

Text: The major issue in this case is whether the board had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Ferguson's appeal. The board has authority to, Hear appeals of employes with permanent status in class, from decisions of appointing authorities when such decisions relate to . . . discharges, . . . but only when it is alleged that such decision was not based on just cause. . . . Sec. 16.05(1) (e), Stats. 1975. Sec. 16.28 (1) (a), Stats. 1975 provides that, An employee with permanent status in class may be . . . discharged . . . only for just cause. This paragraph shall apply to all employes with permanent status in class in the classified service. . . . [1] Based on the above two statutes, the board could only hear Mr. Ferguson's appeal if he had permanent status in class and if it was alleged that his discharge was not for just cause. In this case the problem phrase is permanent status in class. Sec. 16.22 (1) (a), Stats. 1975 provides that, . . . All original and all promotional appointments to permanent . . . positions in the classified service shall be for a probationary period of 6 months. . . . Dismissal may be made at any time during such periods. The exception to this rule appears in sec. 16.22 (1) (d), Stats., providing that, . . . (d) A promotion or other change in job status within a department shall not affect the permanent status in class and rights, previously acquired by an employe within such department. [2-5] Sec. 16.22 (1) (a) and (d), Stats., requires that promotional appointments in the classified service are subject to a six month probationary period, and possible discharge from the classified service. If an employe is promoted within a department, he may be dismissed from the new position during the probationary period. If dismissal from the new position occurs, the employe must be reinstated to his former position or a similar position within that department. There is no effect on, . . . permanent status in class and rights, previously acquired, if the promotion is intra-departmental. If the legislature had intended a different result they would not have included the words within a department and within such department in sec. 16.22 (1) (d). If the employe is discharged during his probationary period in an inter-departmental promotion, his dismissal results in his discharge from the classified service. It is undisputed that Mr. Ferguson had not been employed by D.H.S.S. in his new position for the six month probationary period at the time of his discharge. Therefore, he did not have permanent status in class and the board did not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal. [6] The board admits that Mr. Ferguson did not have permanent status in class in his promotional position, but it claims that he did have tenure rights based on his old position. From this fact, the board argues that Mr. Ferguson could only be discharged without cause from his new position with D.H.S.S. and must be reinstated to a job in his former classification. This argument ignores the requirement of sec. 16.05 (1) (e), Stats., that the board can only hear appeals of employes with permanent status in class. Pers. 13.11, Wis. Adm. Code defines permanent status in class as, . . . the status of an employe in a position who has served a qualifying period to attain a permanent position for that class. This definition requires that status in class relate to a class in which the employe is then serving, not a position in which he has served in the past. Mr. Ferguson did not have permanent status in class as an Information Specialist 3 at the time of his discharge and the board did not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Mr. Ferguson's argument that he still retains permanent status in class in his old position of Information Specialist 2 is also undercut by sec. 16.22 (4), Stats. 1975. That section provides in pertinent part that, . . . an employee who transfers from one employing unit to another . . . may be required by the appointing authority to serve a probationary period. . . . This subsection further demonstrates that a state employe does not, in all circumstances, retain job security following the six month probationary period. This is especially true where the employe has transferred from one department to another. The board and Mr. Ferguson argue that the above statutory interpretation is at odds with the policy of the civil service laws. Sec. 16.01 (2), Stats. 1975 provides that, ... It is the policy of the state . . . to assure that positions in the classified service are filled through methods which apply the merit principle, with adequate civil service safeguards. [7] We agree that the statutory interpretation discussed here offers no civil service safeguard to an employe who accepts an inter-departmental promotion. Nevertheless, the specific statutory mandate is unambiguous and more general policy considerations can not control. In the process of deciding to hear Mr. Ferguson's appeal the board determined that Pers. 14.03 (2), Adm. Code [2] was invalid. That section provides that an employe who receives an inter-departmental promotion will be required to serve a probationary period, during which time he may be dismissed without the right of appeal. The board reasoned that the regulation was invalid as contrary to a proper interpretation of secs. 16.01, 16.22 and 16.28. The board erred. The administrative regulation correctly interprets the statutes.