Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Connie
|
|
Last Name
|
Westfall
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/26/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1093-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Motor Vehicles and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor II
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent Division of Personnel’s interpretation of the classification specification and related definitions was erroneous.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993); Estepp v. Div. of Juvenile Serv., Docket No. 05-DJS-272 (Dec. 30, 2005); Goff and Cantrell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Docket No. 05-HHR-392 (May 31, 2006); Brightwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Docket No. 06-HHR-058 (June 8, 2006); Akers v. W. Va. Dep't of Tax & Revenue, 194 W. Va. 456, 460 S.E.2d 702 (1995); Stover v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04-CORR-259 (Sept. 24, 2004); Dinger v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2013-1047-MerED (Sept. 19, 2013); Sheehan v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 04-10-147 (Aug. 27, 2004), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 04-AA-121 (Mar. 30, 2005)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Minimum Qualifications; Administrative and Supervisory Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent Division of Motor Vehicles as a Supervisor 2. Grievant protests Respondent Division of Motor Vehicles’ determination that she did not meet the minimum qualifications for a Transportation Services Manager 2 position. Respondent Division of Motor Vehicles based its decision of Respondent Division of Personnel’s interpretation of the relevant classification specification and definitions. Although Respondent Division of Personnel had previously interpreted the relevant classification specification and definitions to allow lead worker experience to qualify for the position, its management team had determined that interpretation was in error and directed a change in the interpretation. Grievant failed to prove Respondent Division of Personnel’s interpretation of the classification specification and related definitions was clearly erroneous, that Respondent Division of Personnel was prohibited from correcting its mistake, or that she was entitled to relief based on other employees receiving the benefit of Respondent Division of Personnel’s prior erroneous interpretation. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again