Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Douglas
|
|
Last Name
|
Skeens
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/26/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1530-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Lincoln County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Bus Route
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether a board of education may alter a bus route without the employee’s consent. Whether an employee may be denied an extra-duty assignment that conflicts with his or her regular assignment. Whether Respondent may be required to post two supplemental bus runs as one regular full-time run.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b(f)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Smith v. Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 21-88-043-3 (Dec. 30, 1988); Roberts v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-22-131 (Aug. 31, 1992); Froats v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-15-414 (Dec. 18, 1989); Runyon and Skeens v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ. Docket No. 97-22-479 (Feb. 6, 1998); Garner v. Monongalia County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-30-164 (Sept. 16, 2005); Russell v. Wayne County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-50-041 (March 25, 2002)
|
|
Keywords
|
Bus Route; Extra-Duty Assignments; Employee Consent; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant’s daily bus run was altered by requiring him to take one student with special needs from his home in Harts West Virginia to Ranger Elementary School each morning and return him to his home each afternoon. Prior to this change Grievant’s run was exclusively in the Harts bus area. The trip to Ranger Elementary School required Grievant to drive in the Guyan Valley bus area as well. It also required that he return later than he had previous because Ranger Elementary closes later than Harts.
Grievant alleges that the Board changed his run without consent and the run could have been assigned to a driver from the Guyan Valley area. Additionally, Grievant argues that he now cannot take extra bus runs in the Harts area and he is prohibited from taking extra runs in the Guyan Valley area because the majority of his run is part of the Harts area. Finally, Grievant argue that the Board created two separate supplemental runs and filled them with two drivers. He believes the two runs should have been posted together as a single full-time run which could be filled by a full-time bus operator.
Respondent proved that Grievant’s run was altered to serve the specific need of a child who needed to receive services at Ranger Elementary. Grievant did not prove that Respondent’s decision to assign that duty to him violated law, or policy. Grievant is not prohibited from taking extra runs in the Harts area. He is prohibited from taking extra runs in the Guyan Valley are by a procedure for assigning those runs which was approved by more than two thirds of the bus operators in Lincoln County. Grievant did not prove that Respondent had any obligation to post the two supplemental runs as a single full-time run.
|
Back to Results
Search Again