Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Stuart
|
|
Last Name
|
Peters
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/26/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2381-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Natural Resources
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Park Superintendent 3
|
|
Topics
|
Transfer
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent’s action of transferring Grievant’s location of employment is an act of retaliation. Whether Respondent’s exclusion of Grievant’s representative from a transfer meeting was in violation of Grievant’s statutory rights under W.Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)(1).
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g) (1)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Department, Docket No. 2010-1306-CONS (Nov. 8, 2010); Holland v. Board of Educ., 174 W. Va. 393, 327 S.E.2d 155, (1985); Townshend v. Board of Educ., 183 W. Va. 418, 396 S.E.2d 185 (1990); Craig v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 05-DNR-030 (July 20, 2005); Craig v. Division of Natural Resources, Docket No. 05-DNR-030 (July 20, 2005); Lilly v.Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 07-DOH-387 (June 30, 2008);Swope v. Bd. Of Dir/Shepherd Coll., Docket No. 94-BOD-1095 (July 11, 1995) aff’d, Jefferson Cnty. Cir. Ct., Civil Action No.95-P-133 (Feb. 8, 1996); Bever v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-258 (Dec. 31, 1996); Goodnight v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket No. 91-DHS-111 (May 31, 1991)
|
|
Keywords
|
Involuntary Transfer; Retaliation; Representation; Statutory Rights
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by Respondent as a Park Superintendent. Grievant alleges his transfer from Cabwaylingo State Forest to Kumbrabow State Forest was retaliatory and takes issue with his representative not being allowed to attend the meeting where he was advised of the transfer. The label given the meeting does not matter, if the topic of the meeting is conduct of the employee that could lead to discipline, the employee has a statutory right to have a representative present, if requested. Grievant provided notice and arranged for representation.
Grievant did not present any evidence relating to his claim of retaliatory scheduling or retaliatory 2020 EPA-3. Facts, law, circumstances, and intent are critical factors, their interaction and application are demonstrative to the instant matter. Respondent had the authority to transfer Grievant. NEVERTHELESS, it is established that Grievant’s involuntary transfer from Cabwaylingo State Forest to Kumbrabow State Forest was disciplinary in nature, or at the very least, that the topic of the May 7, 2021 meeting “could lead to discipline.” Respondent’s exclusion of Grievant’s representative from the May 7, 2021, meeting was in violation of Grievant’s statutory rights under W.Va. Code § 6C-2-3(g)(1). Accordingly, this grievance is Granted.
|
Back to Results
Search Again