Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Bonita
|
|
Last Name
|
Bradshaw, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/10/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1392-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Offices of the Insurance Commissioner/ AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Paralegal 1
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants proved that the decision of DOP regarding which classification was the best fit for Grievants’ position was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
WVCSR §143-1-4.7.; W. Va. Code R. §143-1-3.72; W. Va. Code §29-6-1
|
|
Related Cases
|
Toney v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-460 (June 17, 1994); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990); Bradley v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways and Div. of Per., Docket No. 2008-1772-DOT (Feb. 27, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification; Paygrade; Position Description Form; Reallocation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants were both in positions originally classified as Paralegal, paygrade 10. Upon review of Position Description Forms, the West Virginia Division of Personnel (DOP) determined the positions should be reallocated to the classification of Office Assistant 2 (OA 2). After working closely with OIC, OOJ and other State agencies who utilize the Paralegal class specifications, DOP drafted new and revised class specifications for the Paralegal class series. The class specifications underwent the scrutiny of the Unlawful Practice of Law Committee of the West Virginia State Bar (State Bar) before being brought before the State Personnel Board (SPB) for consideration. The SPB approved a new class specification of Paralegal 1, assigning it to paygrade 9 and approved a title change to the old Paralegal class specification creating a new Paralegal 2 classification and assigning it to paygrade 10. Once these classifications were in place, DOP revised their original classification determinations on the positions occupied by Grievants reallocating them to the Paralegal 1 classification.
At no time throughout this entire process did Grievants suffer a loss in pay. Grievants argue that the positions they occupy should be returned to their original classification of Paralegal and reassigned to paygrade 10. Respondent DOP argues but for its actions in drafting new class specifications and working with State agencies and the UPL committee, the positions occupied by the Grievants would remain appropriately classified as OA 2s. The Paralegal classification the Grievants seek no longer exists as a result of SPB action. This Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again