Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jaymi
|
|
Last Name
|
Martin, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/2/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1483-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority/Southern Regional Jail
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Correctional Counselor 2/ Office Assistant 3
|
|
Topics
|
Pay
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants proved that Respondent’s decision to not pursue an internal equity increase for Grievants at this time was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10
|
|
Related Cases
|
AFSCME v. Civil Serv. Comm'n., 181 W. Va. 8, 380 S.E.2d 43 (1989); Largent v. W. Va. Div. of Health and Div. of Personnel, 192 W. Va. 239, 452 S.E.2d 42 (1994); Thewes and Thompson v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Pinecrest Hosp., Docket No. 02-HHR-366 (Sept. 18, 2003); Myers v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2008-1380-DOT (Mar. 12, 2009); Buckland v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2008-0095-DOC (Oct. 6, 2008); Boothe et al. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways. Docket No. 2009-0800-CONS (Feb. 17, 2011); Green v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res./Bureau for Children & Families and Div. of Pers., Docket No. 2011-1577-DHHR (Oct. 1, 2012); Harris v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 06-DOH-224 (Jan. 31, 2007); Christian v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-23-173 (Mar. 31, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Internal Equity Pay Increase; Pay Plan Policy; Pay Grade; Classification; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
All the Grievants are employed in the Southern Regional Jail in positions which are not classified as correctional officers. They have each identified at least one co-worker in each of their classifications who is being paid an annual salary which is more than 20% higher than the annual pay received by each Grievant. Grievants seek “internal equity” pay increases pursuant to the Division of Personnel Pay Plan Policy III. E. 2. Grievant’s allege that they meet all the requirements set out in the policy and Respondent’s failure to recommend them for the internal equity increase is arbitrary and capricious.
Respondent admits that it may have numerous employees including Grievants who may meet the qualifications for an internal equity increase. Respondent has identified a division-wide problem with recruitment and retention of employees and has implemented a large-scale plan to systematically increase the salaries of all their employees over the past few years. The priority of the agency has been to focus on the overall salaries of employees before exercising its discretion to address pay equity issues. This strategy is not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.
|
Back to Results
Search Again