Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Raymond
|
|
Last Name
|
Frost
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/9/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1139-NRCTC
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
New River Community and Technical College
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Trade Specialist 2
|
|
Topics
|
Salary
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by that Respondent was required by statute, rule or policy to use the additional allocation received from the General Revenue in the Budget Bill to provide the a salary increase.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 5-5-1; W. Va. Code § 5-5-6
|
|
Related Cases
|
Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982)
|
|
Keywords
|
Salary; Pay Increase; Pay Equity Adjustment; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant alleges that Respondent was required to spend the entire additional appropriation in the 2019 budget bill to provide a $2,160.00 raise to the 75 employees it pays from funds it receives from the State General Revenue Fund. Grievant argues that these funds were appropriated from the General Revenue Fund, were part of a state-wide raise for state employees contemplated by the legislature and were required to be spent for that limited purpose.
Respondent counters that it gets its funding from four separate sources: The General Revenue Fund; student tuition and fees; state grants; and, federal grants. Respondent funds salaries for positions from all these areas but only received an additional appropriation from general revenue which was insufficient to provide a $2160.00 raise to all its employees. Additionally, in recent years Respondent was forced to reduce all employee salaries to meet budget shortfalls. Respondent used the general revenue appropriation to give most employees and smaller raise and raise some employees to the level they were before the prior cuts were implemented. Finally, Respondent argues that Grievant failed to prove that the legislature placed and restrictions on how the colleges could spend the additional funds provided in the budget bill.
Grievant did not prove that Respondent was legally bound to spend the additional allocation it received in the budget bill from the General Revenue Fund to provide a specific raise to specific employees.
|
Back to Results
Search Again