Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Darren
|
|
Last Name
|
Wise
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/15/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1482-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Highway Engineer Trainee
|
|
Topics
|
Salary
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant is being compensated consistently with the pay plan policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Thewes and Thompson v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/Pinecrest Hosp., Docket No. 02-HHR-366 (Sept. 18, 2003); Largent v. West Virginia Division of Health, 192 W. Va. 239, 452 S.E.2d 42 (1994); White, et al. v. W. Va. State Police and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 05-DPS-168 (July 28, 2005); Brackman v. Div. of Corr./Anthony Corr. Center, Docket No. 02-CORR-104 (Feb. 20, 2003); Gibb v. W. Va. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 98-CORR-152 (Sept. 30, 1998)
|
|
Keywords
|
Salary; Pay Plan Policy; Job Duties; Discrimination
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 9/29/19, CA # 19-AA-109; Judge Salango; Final Order 5/18/2020; Affirmed
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was hired on February 18, 2014, as a Highway Engineer Trainee, in District Six, and works out of the Moundsville, West Virginia office. Grievant asserts that he is entitled to 10% above the new minimum pay schedule and credit for all of his raises, and a 5% increase for the one year of service having received his EIT Certificate. Consistent with applicable case law, Grievant and other Highway Engineer Trainees are being paid in accordance with the pay scale for their employment classification. Grievant is being compensated consistently with the pay plan policy. The record of this case does not support a finding that Respondent engaged in discrimination. Grievant contends that when the Division of Highways appeared through Matt Ball, Assistant Human Resource Director over Administration of Employee Benefits, for a mediation, that Mr. Ball did not have the authority to resolve the grievance. The record reflected that Mr. Ball had the authority of the Division of Highways to resolve certain issues at the mediation session. That issue is essentially moot since the case was heard at Level Three. Accordingly, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again