Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Robert
|
|
Last Name
|
Tribbie, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/26/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0548-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
SLB
|
|
Respondent
|
Mason County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Various
|
|
Topics
|
Observation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants met their burden of proof to show that Respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in requiring Grievants to adhere to a designated lunch period.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-4-14(1); W. Va. Code §18A-2-12a(b)(6)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Risk v. Hancock County Bd. of Ed., Docket No. 07-15-048 (Oct. 3, 1996); Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co, 328 U.S. 680 (1946); Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997); Simms v. Division of Nat'l Res., Docket no. 2015-1156-DOC (Nov. 12, 2015); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985)
|
|
Keywords
|
Observation; Misconduct; Lunch Period; De Minimus Rule; Insubordination; Arbitrary or Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent employs Grievants as maintenance employees. This grievance concerns a “Service Personnel Observation,” form issued to Grievants by their supervisor, which documented, in part, that Grievants did not take their lunch during the designated time period on September 19, 2017 and failed to call their supervisor to request a variance from the prescribed period. On this basis, the Observation noted that Grievants did not meet performance standards in that they failed to comply with the rules and County policies. The Observation further noted that Grievants did not meet performance standards in terms of their "quantity of work." Grievants assert that the observations are disciplinary in nature, as well as inaccurate. Grievants further allege that Respondent violated W. Va. Code §18A-2-12a and W.Va. Code §18A-2-12a(b)(7), in connection with the lunch requirements themselves and issuance of the Observation.
The "Observation" was not disciplinary in nature and Grievants did not meet their burden of proof to show that Respondent arbitrarily or capriciously documented their failure to take lunch during the required time period. Nor did Grievants prove that the lunch requirements were unenforceable in that Grievants were admittedly well aware of these reasonable requirements and had abided by them in the past. Therefore, Grievants had proper notice of the lunch requirements, and the Observation notation that they violated the rules was neither arbitrary nor capricious. However, Grievants established that remaining Observation notations were unsubstantiated and, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again