Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jared
|
|
Last Name
|
Flannery, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/4/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-1526-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Correctional Counselor 2
|
|
Topics
|
Salary; Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent is prohibited from paying a coworker a higher salary.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-5.6(a)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Largent v. W. Va. Div. of Health and Div. of Personnel, 192 W. Va. 239, 452 S.E.2d 42 (1994); Deem et al. v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, Docket No.2016-1041-CONS (Nov. 30, 2016)
|
|
Keywords
|
Salary; Classification; Pay Grade; Minimum Qualification
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant holds a position in the Correctional Counselor 2 classification. He notes that a coworker in the Correctional Counselor 1 classification is paid an annual salary which is higher than his, even though she is paid in a lower pay grade. He believes this is unfair and specifically devalues the education that he was required to hold to meet the minimum qualification for the Correctional Counselor 2 classification.
Respondent does not deny the difference in the two employee’s classifications and salary. Rather Respondent offers a practical explanation relating to the coworker having much more experience than Grievant and that she transferred into the Correctional Counselor 1 position from a classification with a higher pay grade.
Grievant was unable to point to any law, policy, or rule that prohibited Respondent from paying the coworker a higher salary. Additionally, it has been held in many cases that employees are not being treated differently for pay purposes as long as they all are being paid within the pay grade appropriate to their classifications. Accordingly, the grievance must be DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again