Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Zachery
|
|
Last Name
|
Bassham
|
|
Decision Date
|
11/6/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-1447-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO III
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal/Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had just cause to terminate Grievant’s employment and whether his dismissal was clearly excessive or an abuse of discretion.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Tickett v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-06-233 (Mar. 12, 1998); Huffstutler v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-06-150 (Oct. 31, 1997); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Failure to Report; Essential Duty; State of Emergency; Arbitrary and Capricious; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed as a Correctional Officer 3 with Respondent at Southwestern Regional Jail (SWRJ), and, as such, was subject to a requirement to serve temporary duty assignments in any of the state’s Regional Jails at any time as deemed necessary for the appropriate care, custody, and control of the state’s jail inmate population. Respondent dismissed Grievant for his failure to report to work a shift at the South Central Regional Jail (SCRJ). Grievant alleges that he was wrongfully terminated.
At or near the time period relevant to this matter, some non-essential workers in the state were permitted or encouraged to work remotely, nevertheless, state’s prison and jail employees were, and are still, considered essential workers who must report for duty in person as they are directly responsible for the care, custody, and control of an incarcerated population. Whether or not positive COVID-19 cases were diagnosed among inmate or staff populations does not alter the necessity of correctional officers and staff to report for duty to protect the public welfare. In short, the refusal or unwillingness of a correctional officer to perform his or her essential duties is substantial misconduct directly and adversely affecting the rights and interests of the public.
The nature of Grievant’s conduct is significant enough for Respondent, within its scope of discretion, to reasonable conclude that termination of Grievant’s employment was warranted. Grievant has not persuasively provided adequate rebuttal to overturn or significantly mitigate the disciplinary actions of Respondent. Respondent established good cause to dismiss Grievant from employment. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again