On August 4, 1992, the Civil Service Commission promulgated a rule that affords protection to state classified employees who report a violation of laws or rules that have occurred in the workplace. The rule is Section 2-10 "Disclosure of Violations", but is more commonly referred to as the “Whistleblower Protection” rule.

In 1980 the Michigan legislature passed Public Act 469 known as the “Whistleblower Protection Act” which covers public employees (other than state classified employees) and private-sector employees. In developing the Civil Service rule the Commission used PA469 as an example of the type of protections that should also be provided to state classified employees. Although there are distinctions between the Act and the rule, both provide strong protections for employees who disclose violations in the workplace.

As a result of the Commission’s action, here is a brief explanation of Civil Service Rule, Section 2-10, “Disclosure of Violations.”

All nonexclusively represented classified employees are covered by the rule. (If you are exclusively represented by an employee organization, your collective bargaining agreement may contain a provision incorporating the rule into the contract.)

You may report any violation or suspected violation of a state or federal law, regulation, or rule adopted pursuant to the enactment of such a law. The rules of the Civil Service Commission are included in the scope of violations subject to disclosure.

When such violations are reported, appointing authorities are prohibited from engaging in reprisal against employees who made the disclosure. The term “appointing authority” refers to the person heading a principal department but also includes all persons designated by the appointing authority for administering the personnel functions of the department. This starts with your supervisor and goes up through the chain of command.

In many cases employees will discuss with supervision perceived violations of laws or rules prior to actually lodging a complaint that a violation has occurred. To encourage this type of discussion the rule prohibits reprisal against employees who advise supervision of their intent to lodge a complaint that a law or rule has possibly been violated.

If there is evidence the employee knew the report was false, management has the discretion to take appropriate disciplinary measures.

There are occasions when an employee’s knowledge of a situation involving a possible violation of a law or rule may qualify the employee to serve as a witness in a court proceeding, legislative hearing, investigation, or inquiry conducted by other public bodies. In such circumstances, the employee is protected from reprisal for providing information that may serve to confirm a possible violation.

Obvious forms of reprisal are discharge, threats of discipline, or arbitrary and capricious changes in an employee’s conditions of employment. If you feel you are the victim of reprisal in violation of this rule, you may seek redress through the Civil Service grievance procedure. (If you are exclusively represented by an employee organization, the applicable grievance procedure would be as provided in your collective bargaining agreement.)

2-23.1 Reprisal Prohibited. – An appointing authority shall not engage in reprisal against an employee for disclosing a violation or suspected violation of a state or federal law, or regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a political subdivision thereof, or by the Civil Service Commission.

2-23.2 Application. – An employee who reports, or who is known by the appointing authority to have indicated an intent to report, such violations or suspected violations shall be protected by this rule, unless the employee knew the report was false. This protection shall extend to employees who participate, or who were known by the appointing authority to have indicated an intent to participate, in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry conducted by a public body, and to employees who participate, or who were known by the appointing authority to have indicated an intent to participate in a court proceeding.

2-23.3 Forms of Reprisal. – Reprisal includes such actions as discharge, threats of discipline, or arbitrary and capricious changes in the conditions of employment.