Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Janet
|
|
Last Name
|
Manning
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/22/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2171-RalED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Raleigh County Board of Education and Tara Sanders, Intervenor
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
ECATT/Special Ed. Aide
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that she should have been selected for a posted aide/ECCAT position over the successful applicant and/or whether Respondent violated any law, rule or policy in giving priority to the successful applicant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b, § 18A-4-8b(d)(2), § 18A-4-8b(d)(2)(C), § 18A-4-8g, § 18A-4-8(i), § 18A-4-8g(j), § 18A-4-8g(l), § 18A-4-8(u), § 18A-4-8(i)(36), (37), and (38), (36), (37), and (38)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Wagner v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2017-0809-RalED (July 20, 2017); Mayle v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2016-0113-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016); Cosner v. Gilmer County Bd. of Educ. and Skinner, Docket No. 2015-1520-GilED (July 27, 2016); Paugh v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1574-BarED (Aug. 26, 2016); Adkins v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2015-1620-FayED (Oct. 19, 2016)
|
|
Keywords
|
Aide/Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher (ECCAT), Seniority, Multiclassified; Priority
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant filed a complaint over her non-selection for a vacancy in the position of Aide/Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher (ECCAT) at Daniels Elementary School. Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Aide when she filed this grievance. She bid on a posted aide/early childhood classroom assistant teacher position, which required Early Childhood Classroom Assistant Teacher certification. Respondent selected another candidate although Grievant was the most senior applicant in the Aide classification. This Board has ruled that for seniority purposes, the aide class titles are not in the same classification category as the ECCAT class titles. The parties disagree on the application of the law, practical implications and determining the proper selection process with or without preferential application. It is ECCAT certification, seniority and employment status that tends to distinctly influence personnel decisions, for ECCAT positions. The amount of seniority in the ECCAT category which Grievant is entitled is debated. The successful applicant held an ECCAT job at the time Respondent appointed her to the position in dispute. The record did not establish that Grievant had more seniority in the ECCAT category than the successful applicant. Grievant did not demonstrate she was entitled to placement in the posted position. Grievance Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again