Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Pam
|
|
Last Name
|
Ward
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/29/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0222-RalED
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Raleigh County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Custodian III
|
|
Topics
|
Work Schedule
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that she was entitled to the requested relief.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code §18A 4 5b; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2
|
|
Related Cases
|
Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm., 655 S.E.2d 52 (2007); See Bd. of Educ. v. White, 216 W.Va. 242, 605 S.E.2d 814 (2004); Chadock v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04 CORR 278 (Feb. 14, 2005)
|
|
Keywords
|
Schedule Change; Regular Job Duties; Relief; Similarly Situated Employees; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is regularly employed by Respondent as a Custodian III with a 230-day contract. Under her 230-day contract, Grievant was required to work five (5) days during June, 2018. (June 14, 15, 18, 25 and 26). Grievant was contacted by the central office person overseeing the summer assignments and offered the opportunity to work additional days as a substitute (i.e., June 15, 18, 25 and 26, 2018) at another school and earn extra money. Several days overlapped. Grievant desired and requested but was not provided proper authorization to alter her working days. Grievant contends that she was unfairly or improperly denied the opportunity or benefit of four days’ pay.
While select identifiable agents of Respondent are to some degree capable of authorizing the type of schedule alterations Grievant desires Respondent persuasively maintains it does not knowingly authorize the type of working day scheduled change proposed by Grievant. Respondent is not discriminating against Grievant in not providing Grievant the flexibility to double dip on scheduled workdays nor is it established that Grievant is entitled to the prospective monetary relief. Grievant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was unlawfully denied opportunity, benefit or compensation which other similarly situated employees are permitted to avail themselves. This Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again