| First Name | Chris |
| Last Name | Thomas |
| Decision Date | 10/23/2018 |
| Docket Number | 2017-2110-DHHR |
| ALJ | BTC |
| Respondent | Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Adult Protective Services Worker |
| Topics | Job Duties |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant is entitled to the immediate and continued removal of out-of-classification duties. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 29-6-5(b)(2); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(i); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-4.3.a (2016) |
| Related Cases | Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Toney v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-460 (June 17, 1994); Guertin v. Tax Dep’t & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2009-1687-DOR (July 27, 2010); Newhouse v. Insurance Comm'n & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 2016-0104-CONS (July 26, 2016); Broaddus et al. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Ser., Docket No. 89-DHS-606/607/608/609 (Aug, 31, 1990); Beer v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 95-DOH-161 (Feb. 27, 1996); Shremshock v. W. Va. Dept. of Trans., Docket No. 94-DOH-095 (Aug. 31, 1994); Crowder et al. v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 2018-0417-CONS (Oct. 4, 2018); Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27, 1991); Dooley v. Dept. of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994); Barker v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2015-0422-DHHR (Aug. 22, 2016); Hall v. Div. of Natural Res. & Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 00-DNR-053 (Apr. 28, 2000) |
| Keywords | Job Duties; Classification; Work Assignments; Advisory Opinion |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant is employed by Respondent in its Wood County office as an Adult Protective Services Worker. Although Grievant was promoted to her Adult Protective Services Worker position, due to high turnover, she continued to be assigned the duties of her previous Social Service Worker II position. Grievant requested “the immediate and continued removal of assignments that are clearly not within her classification.” Grievant is not entitled to the removal of the out-of-class duties she is required to perform as those duties comprise no more than five percent of her total duties. Grievant’s request for the continued removal of out-of-class duties due to her concern that the out-of-class duties may again become predominant is speculative and would constitute an advisory opinion, which is unavailable. Accordingly, the grievance is denied. |