Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Robert
|
|
Last Name
|
Bishop
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/7/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0531-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Health Service Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant’s termination was an abuse of discretion or an arbitrary and capricious act.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
143 C.S.R. § 12.2(c)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Barnes v. W. Va. Dep't of Trans./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 99-DOH-305 (Jan 31, 2000); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Failure to Report to Work; Unauthorized Leave; Incarcerated; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed at Sharpe Hospital as a Health Service Worker. Respondent met its burden of proof and demonstrated by preponderance of the evidence that Grievant was dismissed for good cause when he was absent from his employment without authority based upon being incarcerated on a misdemeanor charge. Grievant contacted Respondent and advised that he was negotiating a plea agreement which would expose him to forty-five days of incarceration. Grievant was able to bond out on the misdemeanor charge fifteen days after his arrest, which represented the majority of his work schedule. Grievant did not have approved leave to cover his extended absence.
In the circumstances presented, Grievant’s termination was not an abuse of discretion or an arbitrary action. The record is undisputed that Grievant was incarcerated for fifteen days of his month long work schedule. The record did not establish that Grievant had sufficient leave to cover this absence. Thus, Respondent had discretion to grant or deny Grievant’s request for leave, so long has that discretion was not exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again