Database Search Result Details

First Name Joseph
Last Name Compton, Sr.
Decision Date 10/24/2018
Docket Number 2018-0756-MAPS
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Juvenile Services/James H. Morton Juvenile Center
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Cook
Topics Pay Increase
Primary Issues Whether Grievant proved that he is entitled to a pay increase.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008)
Related Cases Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Lucas v. Dep’t Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-141 (May 14, 2008); Morgan v. Dep’t Health & Human Res., Docket No. 07-HHR-131 (June 5, 2008); Moore v. Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, Docket No. 2014-0046-DEP (May 9, 2014); Harris v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 06-DOH-224 (Jan. 31, 2007); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf & the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604 at 614, 474 S.E.2d 534 at 544 (1996)
Keywords Classification; Job Duties; Pay Increase; Discretionary; Arbitrary and Capricious; Supervise; Manager; Temporary Upgrade; Pay Plan Implementation; Merit
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by Respondent as a cook. In July 2015, Grievant was required to assume additional kitchen duties because the persons hired to perform these functions vacated their positions. Grievant received no pay increase for these additional duties. Grievant asked his supervisor and administration for a pay increase to no avail, even though Respondent continues to compliment his work performance. Respondent has taken the position that it has no authority to grant such a pay increase. Respondent also asserts that pay increases that Grievant seeks are simply discretionary and are not required. Grievant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a pay increase, or that Respondent has violated any law, rule, or policy by failing to grant him such. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again