Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Randall
|
|
Last Name
|
Randolph
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/6/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0287-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 3 - Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Overtime
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in the distribution of overtime.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2 (d); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(h)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bucklew v. W.Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 02-DOH-237 (Aug 22, 2003) Collins v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 02-DOH-338 (Feb. 11, 2003); Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Docket No.01-DOH-015 (August 24, 2001); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n, 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007); Spencer v. Steinbrecher, 152 W. Va. 490, 164 S. E. 2d 720 (1968)
|
|
Keywords
|
Overtime; Policy; Similarly Situated Employees; Discrimination; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
There are recognized administrative operating procedure established for Respondent in granting overtime hours to its employees. Grievant firmly believes he is being overlooked for overtime opportunities. Respondent maintains that applicable overtime policy is properly being followed and overtime is distributed based on the needs of the organization. Respondent maintains the employees that Grievant focuses on having more overtime are not similarly situated employees.
There is scheduled and unscheduled overtime. Respondent’s overtime assignments in Mason County vary and change with a variety of organizational needs., e.g., special projects, weather conditions and seasonal activities. Grievant reasonably harbors some concerns over the execution of Respondent’s discretion in distributing overtime. Nevertheless, not all of the individuals Grievant highlights are similar situated employees, nor is it established the difference in treatment was unrelated to job assignment. Although it was established and recognized that not all of Respondent employees receive the same or an equivalently similar amounts of overtime, Grievant has failed to establish that he is entitled to the difference in total overtime paid to other employee as lost wages. A difference in overtime totals alone does not establish entitlement. The general rule with regard to proof of damages is that such proof cannot be sustained by mere speculation or conjecture. This case is not the exception to this principle. Accordingly, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again