Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Joshua
|
|
Last Name
|
Vickers
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/20/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0581-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Duplicating Equipment Operator 2
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent abused its discretion in the suspension and subsequent termination of Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)(1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Dep't, Docket No. 2010-1306-CONS (Nov. 8, 2010); Knight v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 2008-0981-DHHR (August 6, 2009); Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Department, Docket No. 2010-1306-CONS (November 8, 2010); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Termination; Treats of Violence; Misconduct; Policy Violation; Right to Representation; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was suspended during Respondent’s investigation of alleged threats of violence communicated by Grievant toward agency personnel. Grievant was informed that cooperation with the investigation was a condition of his employment. Grievant was subsequently dismissed from employment Grievant denies making threatening statements and argues Respondent violated his right to representation. Grievant further contends the penalty of termination was excessive and disproportionate for the alleged offense(s). Respondent maintains Grievant’s suspension and subsequent termination were appropriate in response to Grievant’s violations of DOH’s Standards of Work Performance and Conduct.
Determining the proper disposition of this matter is complicated and not necessarily easily discerned. Compelling procedure and rights intermingle throughout. Both parties bear some responsibility for the status of this grievance matter. Respondent and Grievant needed to be more aware of the others concerns. Nevertheless, Respondent established by a preponderance of the evidence reasonable justification for sanctioning Grievant. The severity of Grievant’s conduct is within the recognized purview this employing agency. Sufficient mitigating factors are not found present in the instant matter to mandate overriding the disciplinary action of Respondent. In the circumstances of this matter Grievant did not demonstrate that the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again