[nfbmi-talk] hiebec civil service decision

[joe harcz Comcast]

Source:

http://web1mdcs.state.mi.us/NXT/gateway.dll/DSTARS/hearings%20employee%20relations%20and%20mediation%20hearings%20officer%20decisions/2013/csho%202013-045.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0

 

 

 

CSHO 2013-045 Cheryl L. Heibeck Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 5/31/2013

 

RICK SNYDER

 

GOVERNOR

 

State of Michigan

 

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

 

COMMISSIONERS

 

THOMAS M. WARDROP, CHAIR

 

JAMES BARRETT

 

CHARLES BLOCKETT, JR.

 

ROBERT W. SWANSON

 

ACTING STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR

 

JANET McCLELLAND

 

May 31, 2013

 

CSHO 2013-045

 

Ref. No.

 

2013-00318

 

Robert E. Proctor

 

Attorney At Law

 

(address)

 

Re:

 

Heibeck v.

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

 

Dear Mr. Proctor:

 

This office received the grievance appeal of Cheryl L. Heibeck on May 24, 2013.  For the reasons set forth below, I am administratively dismissing the grievance

appeal.

 

Ms. Heibeck has filed a two-part grievance against the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).

 

First, she claims that she is entitled to reinstatement as Director of the Training Center (“Director”) at the Michigan Rehabilitation Center for the Blind.

 I note that Ms. Heibeck was appointed as Director to replace Christine Boone, who was discharged in 2010.  It is undisputed that Ms. Heibeck was the Director

from June 13, 2010, through June 25, 2011, when she was displaced as the Director by the return of Christine Boone.  In March 2013, Ms. Boone resigned

the Director position.  Ms. Heibeck was not returned to the Director position after Ms. Boone’s departure in March 2013.  Ms. Heibeck alleges that she

is entitled to automatic reinstatement to the Director position based on Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rule 3-3.9, Reinstatement:

 

A classified employee who achieved status and who is demoted or separated while in satisfactory standing is eligible for reinstatement.  An appointing authority

may reinstate an eligible person to (1) the classification in which the person last achieved status before the separation or demotion or (2) to a classification

at the same or lower classification level for which the person is qualified.  A person’s eligibility for reinstatement is limited to 3 years after separation

or demotion.  However, the state personnel director may extend eligibility in the regulations to meet work force needs.

 

^2CSC Rule 3-3.9 is a permissive rule that permits, but does not require, an appointing authority to reinstate an employee to a former position.  Rule 3-3.9

is discretionary, not mandatory.  Thus, the employer has the discretion to reinstate Ms. Heibeck to the Director position, but is not obligated to do so.

 Since Rule 3-3.9 does not guarantee reinstatement, Ms. Heibeck may not, in the grievance process, seek to force her reinstatement contrary to the discretionary

decision of her employer.  Therefore, her appeal to this office must be administratively dismissed because the Civil Service Hearings Office lacks jurisdiction

to consider her appeal.  CSC Rule 8-4(b).

 

Second, Ms. Heibeck seeks damages for breach of an oral promise by agents of the employer.  Ms. Heibeck alleges that, in 2010 when she sought appointment

as Director, she raised the issue of what would occur if Ms. Boone, who previously held the Director position, was reinstated by an arbitrator.  Ms. Heibeck

alleges that she was promised that she would not be negatively affected if Ms. Boone was reinstated by an arbitrator.  However, in June 2011, Ms. Boone

was returned to the Director position and Ms. Heibeck was returned to a 15-level position.

 

If Ms. Heibeck had a grievance regarding the alleged oral promise, that grievance arose no later than June 25, 2011, when she left the Director position

and returned to a 15-level position.  Under CSC Rule 8-1.2, Time Limits, she was obligated to file her grievance not later than one year after her grievance

arose.  Thus, the last possible day for filing her grievance over the alleged broken promise was June 25, 2012.

 

Since her grievance was not filed until April 15, 2013, it cannot be accepted by the employer.  As a result of being untimely, Ms. Heibeck is not authorized

to file the grievance and the Civil Service Hearings Office cannot consider it.  CSC Rule 8-4(a)(1) and (a)(2).  Therefore, her appeal to this office must

be administratively dismissed because the grievance was not timely filed.  CSC Rule 8-4(c).

 

Very truly yours,

 

/S/

 

Sherrie D. Baidoon, Manager

 

Civil Service Hearings Office

 

cc:

 

Ms. Cheryl L. Heibeck

 

Mr. Frank Russell, LARA

 

^3

 

Notice:  This administrative denial may be appealed if received by the Civil Service Commission’s Employment Relations Board within 28 calendar days of

the mailing date on the face of this letter (

June 28, 2013) as authorized in Civil Service Commission Rule 8-7, Appeal to Civil Service Commission.  Instructions and forms for filing an appeal, Civil

Service Regulation 8.05, Employment Relations Board Appeal Procedures, and Regulation 8.06, Computing Time and Filing Documents, can be found at

www.mi.gov/erb.

  Appeals and inquiries should be addressed to the Employment Relations Board, Michigan Civil Service Commission, Capitol Commons Center, 400 South Pine

Street, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan 48909; by telephone at (517) 335-5588; by fax at (517) 335-2884; or by e-mail to

MCSC-ERB at michigan.gov.

 

This is a publication of the Michigan Civil Service Commission. The written document, as published at the time it was issued, is the most authoritative

source of the actual content and format of the decision.