Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Anthony
|
|
Last Name
|
Belcher, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/18/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1195-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 2, Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Selection
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants provided that Respondent violated W. Va. Code § 29-6-10 and the Division of Personal Administrative Rule which implements that statute by not giving proper consideration to their seniority in the selection process.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-10; W. Va. Code § 17-2A-24
|
|
Related Cases
|
Burgess v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2019-0576-DOT (Nov. 22, 2019); Blake v. West Virginia Division of Highways, Docket No. 92-DOH-416 (May I, 1998); Hale v. West Virginia Division of Highways, Docket No. 2010-1327-DOT (June 3, 2011); Powell v. Brown, 160 W. Va. 723, 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977); Bailey v. W. Va. Dept. of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-389 (Dec. 20, 1994); McFadden v. W. Va. Dept of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-428 (Feb. 17, 1995); Dadisman v. W. Va. Div. of Rehabilitation Serv., Docket Nos. 98-RS- 023/040 (Mar. 25, 1999)
|
|
Keywords
|
Selection; Posting; Internal Applicants; Hiring Process; Seniority; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent posted a total of vacancies for five Transportation Worker 3 positions in two separate postings. The vacancies were for Mingo County. Respondent held a job fair in September 2018, wherein many external applicants were given an expedited application and interview process. One of the TW3 vacancies was filled by an external applicant at the job fair. Two more of the positions were filed by internal applicants and two vacancies were not filled. Neither Grievant was recommended nor selected for any of the vacant TW3 positions.
Grievant argue that the hiring process was improper, and their non-selection was arbitrary and capricious because they were the most qualified candidates. Both Grievants are experienced and capable employees with good employment records. However, they did not prove that any flaws that occurred in the hiring process effected the outcome. They also did not prove that the reasons for selecting the successful applicants were not reasonably related to the position positions being filled and therefore arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again