Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Ronald
|
|
Last Name
|
Matheny
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/2/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0225-HarED
|
|
ALJ
|
SLB
|
|
Respondent
|
Harrison County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Bus Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Transfer
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that Respondent’s transfer of him was arbitrary or capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1); W. Va. Code §18A-4-8b
|
|
Related Cases
|
Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Empl. Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); Whalen v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-26-234 (Feb. 27, 1998); Eckenrode v. Kanawha County Board of Education, Docket No. 96-20-302 (January 22, 1997); State ex rel. Hawkins v. Tyler County Bd. of Educ., 166 W.Va. 363, 275 S.E.2d [908] (1980); State ex rel. Hawkins v. Tyler County Bd. of Ed., 275 S.E.2d 908, 912 (W.Va. 1980); Perry, et al., v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-10-205 (July 25, 1996); Wellman v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-27-327/300 (Nov. 30, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Transfer; Bus Route; Seniority; Arbitrary or Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant, a bus driver for Respondent Board of Education, was assigned to a bus route that served special needs students for approximately 16 years. There were two bus routes in Harrison County that served special needs students for a period of time, Grievant’s route and another similar route. When the Board decided that it no longer needed two bus routes to serve the special needs students, it eliminated Grievant’s route and transferred him to another route. Grievant asserts that he should have been given the remaining special needs bus route when his route was eliminated, because he was senior to the bus driver of the other route, citing a violation of W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8b. Grievant did not lose any benefits or salary as a result of his transfer. West Virginia law does not require that service personnel be transferred on the basis of seniority and Grievant failed to establish that Respondent’s transfer of him was either arbitrary or capricious. Respondent asserts the defense that Grievant failed to timely file his grievance, but failed to prove this. Therefore, this grievance must be DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again