Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
David
|
|
Last Name
|
Fewell
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/15/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-0002-DEP
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Environmental Protection/Division of Air Quality and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Technical Analyst
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that DOP’s classification for his position was clearly wrong or arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-1; W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-3.19; W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-4.5
|
|
Related Cases
|
Toney v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-460 (June 17, 1994); Kuntz/Wilford v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-301 (Mar. 26, 1997); Hayes v. W. Va. Dep’t of Nat'l Res., Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606 through 609 (Aug. 31, 1990)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Position Description Forms; Pay Grade; Job Responsibilities; Added Job Duties; Reallocation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant filed a grievance against his employer alleging his position is improperly classified, seeking reallocation. The West Virginia Division of Personnel was joined as an indispensable party. Grievant contends he is misclassified as a Technical Analyst, pay grade 22 and suggests that the classification of Technical Analyst Senior, pay grade 23 more accurately reflects his job duties. Both Grievant and Department of Environmental Protection, the employing State agency, seek to have the position reallocation as a Technical Analyst Senior classification.
The Division of Personnel is the entity of WV State government charged with making classification determinations. Upon reviewing the documents related to Grievant’s position, and performing an on-site job audit, DOP determined that Grievant’s duties best fit into the classification of Technical Analyst classification (or Environmental Resources Program Manager which is a lower pay grade). Grievant did not prove that DOP’s classification decision was clearly wrong. It is understood why Grievant is steadfast with his opinion; nevertheless, pursuant to the relevant regulations and decisive factors Grievant has not establish that his preferred classification was the “best fit” classification for his position. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again