Washington Administrative Code Title 358 - Personnel Appeals Board
1. Purpose of WAC Title 358
WAC Title 358 governs the Personnel Appeals Board, the independent, quasi-judicial body that hears employment disputes involving classified Washington State employees.
Its core purposes are to:
Ensure merit-based public employment
Protect employees from arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful personnel actions
Provide due process in disciplinary and separation actions
Implement statutory rights found primarily in RCW 41.06
Washington courts consistently describe the PAB as a neutral adjudicator, not an advocate for either employees or agencies.
2. Jurisdiction of the Personnel Appeals Board
Covered Employees
PAB jurisdiction generally includes:
Classified state employees
Permanent employees who have completed probation
Excluded Employees
PAB does not generally cover:
Exempt employees
Elected officials
Certain higher-level management or confidential positions
Case Law Principle
Washington courts have held that PAB jurisdiction is strictly statutory—if an employee does not fall within the statute, the Board cannot expand its authority.
Key principle from case law:
Administrative agencies may act only within powers expressly granted by statute.
3. Appealable Actions Under Title 358
Common actions that may be appealed include:
Dismissal
Suspension
Demotion
Reduction in pay
Certain layoffs
Alleged violations of civil service rules
Non-disciplinary management decisions (such as performance evaluations alone) are usually not appealable unless they result in a tangible adverse action.
Case Law Principle
Washington courts have ruled that:
Substance controls over labels—an agency cannot avoid review by calling a disciplinary action “administrative.”
However, managerial discretion is respected unless abused.
4. Filing an Appeal (Procedural Rules)
WAC Title 358 strictly governs:
Time limits (often 30 days from notice)
Form and content of appeals
Service requirements
Failure to comply can result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Case Law Principle
Courts consistently uphold:
Strict enforcement of filing deadlines
Even meritorious claims may be dismissed if untimely
Washington courts emphasize that deadlines are jurisdictional, not discretionary.
5. Hearing Procedures
Pre-Hearing Process
Discovery may be allowed
Motions (including summary dismissal) are permitted
Pre-hearing conferences narrow issues
Hearing Characteristics
Conducted before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Sworn testimony
Evidence rules are relaxed but fairness is required
Burden of proof typically rests on the agency
Case Law Principle
Washington courts require:
A meaningful opportunity to be heard
Notice sufficient to prepare a defense
An impartial decision-maker
This reflects constitutional procedural due process.
6. Standards of Proof and Review
At the PAB Level
Agencies must generally prove:
Misconduct occurred
Discipline was for cause
Penalty was proportionate
Judicial Review
Courts reviewing PAB decisions apply standards such as:
Whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious
Whether it was supported by substantial evidence
Whether the Board correctly interpreted the law
Case Law Principle
Courts defer to:
PAB fact-finding
Credibility determinations
But courts do not defer to:
Errors of law
Misinterpretation of statutes
7. Remedies and Outcomes
The PAB may:
Affirm discipline
Reverse discipline
Modify penalties
Order reinstatement
Award back pay and benefits
However, remedies must be authorized by statute.
Case Law Principle
Washington courts have ruled that:
The PAB may reduce penalties if discipline is excessive
But it may not impose remedies beyond statutory authority
8. Relationship to Collective Bargaining Agreements
If a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) applies:
Certain disputes may go to arbitration instead of PAB
Jurisdiction depends on statutory and contractual language
Case Law Principle
Washington courts hold that:
Statutes prevail over CBAs
Employees cannot waive statutory rights unless clearly authorized
9. Key Themes from Washington Case Law
Across multiple decisions, Washington courts emphasize:
Due process is central to public employment discipline
Strict procedural compliance is required
Agencies bear the burden in disciplinary cases
PAB authority is limited by statute
Judicial review is deferential but not blind
10. Practical Significance
WAC Title 358 functions as:
A shield against unfair discipline
A framework for lawful agency action
A check on abuse of discretion
Courts view it as a balance between:
Employee protections
Efficient public administration
RELATED Blog
comments