Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Leslie
|
|
Last Name
|
Riddle
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/24/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-2029-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Economic Service Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Annual Leave; Paid Time Off
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant is entitled to paid time off to attend a coworker’s predetermination meeting as an employee representative.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(j); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(p)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992); Hammons v. W. Va. Office of the Ins. Comm'r, 235 W. Va. 577, 584, 775 S.E.2d 458, 465 (2015); Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975); Smith v. West Virginia Div. of Rehabilitative Servs., 208 W. Va. 284, 287, 540 S.E.2d 152, 155 (2000)
|
|
Keywords
|
Annual Leave; Policy; Employee Representative; Paid Time Off; Predetermination Meeting; Rules of Interpretation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 11/20/18, CA No. 18-AA-256 (Kaufman); Affirmed 3/26/19
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent charged Grievant annual leave rather than paid time off for appearing at a coworker’s predetermination meeting as the employee representative. West Virginia code permits Grievant to represent fellow employees, upon request, at any stage of a “grievance proceeding” or at non “grievance proceeding” meetings to consider disciplinary action. The code requires Respondent to provide Grievant paid time off to attend and prepare for a coworker’s “grievance proceeding”. The code does not require paid time off for attending disciplinary meetings that fall outside the definition of “grievance proceedings”. The code’s definition of “grievance proceeding” is ambiguous enough to include predetermination meetings. The parties have not provided sufficient facts to enable this Board to determine whether the predetermination meeting Grievant attended on March 16, 2018, falls within the definition of “grievance proceeding”. Respondent’s grievance policy excludes predetermination meetings from the definition of “grievance proceedings” in its requiring employee representatives to use annual leave time to attend predetermination meetings. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent either violated the law or Respondent’s own policy when Respondent charged Grievant annual leave for representing a coworker at a predetermination meeting rather than providing her paid leave. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again