Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Joshua
|
|
Last Name
|
Branson, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/14/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2289-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways and Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
TW2
|
|
Topics
|
Temporary Upgrade
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants established they should be granted temporary upgrade pay.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10
|
|
Related Cases
|
Melton v. Div. of Highways, Docket No 2016-1405-DOT (June 7, 2017); Singleton v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-490 (May 24, 1996); Cook v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 00-HHR-352 (June 29, 2001)
|
|
Keywords
|
Temporary Upgrade Policy; Pay Increase; Supervision; Inmate Work Crew; Discrimination; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants, employees of the Division of Highways, seek temporary pay upgrade for crew supervision. Both Respondents maintain that Grievants are not eligible for an upgrade but arrive at the conclusion from different rational. Grievants protest failing to receive a temporary pay upgrade when overseeing inmate work crews. Grievants avert that there is no difference in duties or responsibilities between the jobs of supervising a crew of DOH employees, a crew of inmates or a mixed crew of inmates and DOH employees. Grievants assert, given the identical essential nature of the job, paying extra compensation for one job and not the other is unreasonable, without due consideration, and is in disregard of the duty performed.
Historically, DOH had an internal agency practice of providing temporary hourly upgrades to employees when they were in positions that did not have crew chief responsibilities but were assigned the crew chief responsibilities on any given day. DOH interpretation of their identified policy suggests temporary oversight of inmates does not qualify the DOH employee for crew chief pay increase. Respondent DOP maintains that Grievant’s activities do not comport to the definition of supervision found in DOP’s Pay Plan, thus Grievants are not eligible for a pay upgrade. Grievants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to a pay increase. Grievance DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again