Histories

State of Michigan Department of Civil Service Hearings, Employee Relations and Mediation Division A Technical Appeal Decision Patrick Tombeau and Department of Civil Service (Classification and Selection Operations Bureau) Appointing Authority Department of Mental Health Mailing Date: 08/11/1995 HERM 0183-95 Docket No. 95-0066-T Selection Appeal Eligibility for Forensic Psychologist 11 Case Summary Grievant does not possess the required degree in Clinical Psychology. Instead, his Ph.D. is in Psychology, with a specialization (noted on his University of Michigan transcript) in Education. The record discloses that had his specialization at the University been Clinical in nature, it would so indicate in the same box on the transcript. Grievant contended that his coursework consisted of a substantial number of Clinical Psychology courses. That fact, combined with his clinical experience with the State of Michigan and the absence of a definition of the term “substantial” should qualify him for Forensic Psychologist 11, he argued. Due to the decision of the Employment/Relations Board in Maurice Sanders v. Department of Civil Service, (ERB 95-035) I am constrained to agree with the grievant. The appeal is granted. Hearing Officer Hearings Reporter William P. Hutchens None Appearances Grievant Patrick Tombeau, Psychologist VIII Department of Civil Service Susan Wilmore, Component Manager, Evaluation Division Appointing Authority None ^2Witnesses Grievant None Department of Civil Service Diane Drake, Classification Specialist, Classification Division Appointing Authority None A technical appeal hearing was held on June 13, 1995, at the Department of Civil Service Labor Relations Center, 608 South Washington Avenue, Lansing, Michigan. All parties were given full opportunity to present testimonial and documentary evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and present oral argument. Issues Whether the grievant possesses the appropriate education and experience to be placed on the employment list for Forensic Psychologist 11? Stipulations 1) There is no Civil Service definition of the term “substantially clinical.” 2) The Civil Service interpretation of “substantial coursework in a Ph.D. program” is that at least fifty percent of the coursework must have been in Clinical Psychology. Findings The grievant is employed as the Director of Psychology, Walter Reuther Psychiatric Hospital. He is a State classified employee, his current classification being Psychologist VIII. He seeks ^3placement on the employment list for Forensic Psychologist 11. The education and experience requirements for Forensic Psychologist 11 are as follows: Education Possession of a Ph.D. or Psy.D. from an accredited psychology program in a curriculum which is substantially clinical in nature. Experience Forensic Psychologist 11 No specific type or amount is required. NECESSARY SPECIAL REQUIREMENT Forensic Psychologist 11 Eligibility for licensure in accordance with the Administrative Rules of the Michigan Board of Psychology. NOTE: Equivalent combinations of education and experience which can be shown to provide the required knowledge, skills and abilities will be evaluated on an individual basis. In the absence of a Civil Service definition of the term “substantial” the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary definition will have to suffice. It reads in substance as follows: substantial...1a: consisting of, relating to, sharing the nature of, or constituting substance: existing as or in substance: b: not seeming or imaginary: not illusive: c: being of moment: 2a: adequately or generously nourishing: b: possessed of goods or an estate: moderately wealthy: c: considerable in amount, value or worth: 3a having good substance: firmly or stoutly constructed: b: having a solid or firm foundation: soundly based: carrying weight: 4a: being that specified to a large degree or in the main: b: of or relating to the main part of something. (Emphasis Supplied) It should be obvious from the description above that if the University granting the degree viewed it as being substantially clinical in nature, a notation to that effect would be contained in the ^4transcript for the graduate in question. Here, the University has noted that the grievant’s area of specialization in his Ph.D. program in Psychology was “Education”. I cannot find that his degree is the equivalent of a degree in Clinical Psychology. The classification specifications set forth above require a Psychology Ph.D. which is substantially Clinical in nature. No particular type of experience is required at the 11 level. This hearing officer is of the opinion that when such a degree is required along with no experience, the degree requirement is an absolute. The Employment Relations Board, however, in Maurice Sanders and Department of Civil Service, ERB 95-035, found that reasoning to be: ...clearly erroneous and that the appellant’s education and experience should have been evaluated by the THO pursuant to the ‘equivalent combinations’ language contained in the class specifications. Having found that the grievant does not possess the qualifying degree, the Hearing Officer will examine whether the grievant’s work history qualifies him for placement on the list in question. The grievant is a licensed psychologist, thereby fulfilling the special requirement set forth in the class specification. He has been employed by the State of Michigan in a clinical setting since 1985, when he worked as a Psychologist VIB in the admissions unit of Ypsilanti Regional Psychiatric Hospital. He worked in that capacity until 1991, when he moved to Walter Reuther Psychiatric Hospital where he continues today as Director of Psychology. Discussion and Conclusion I am convinced from my review of this record that while the grievant lacks the required area of specialization in his Ph.D. in Psychology, that shortcoming has been more than compensated for through his years of clinical experience at the Ypsilanti and Reuther Psychiatric Hospitals. Neither the Hearing Officer nor the Evaluation Division are in a position to determine whether the grievant will be the best qualified applicant for any subsequent vacancy which may occur in ^5the Forensic Psychologist 11 class and level. The sole question here is whether the grievant possesses the minimum requirements for placement on the Forensic Psychologist 11 employment list. As long as the “equivalent combinations” language continues in place on the various employment lists, the Evaluation Division will have to expect results such as this decision and that in the Sanders case cited above. The appeal is granted. The grievant’s name is to be added forthwith to the Forensic Psychologist 11 employment list. Decision The appeal is granted as set forth above. Dated: August 4, 1995 /S/ WM. P. Hutchens at Lansing, Michigan William P. Hutchens Hearing Officer This decision may be appealed to the Employment Relations Board within twenty (20) weekdays of the mailing date indicated above by filing an application for leave to appeal with the Board in accordance with Section 2-20.3 of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission and the Board Appeal Procedures. Appeals shall be addressed: Employment Relations Board, Department of Civil Service. Capitol Commons Center, 400 South Pine Street, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan 48909. 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.