Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Lisa
|
|
Last Name
|
McGraw
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/3/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-2005-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Juvenile Services AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor 3
|
|
Topics
|
Classification
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her duties more closely match those of the Supervisor 3 classification to which she is currently assigned.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R. §143-1-3.72; W. Va. Code § 29-6-5(b); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-4.4
|
|
Related Cases
|
Hayes v. W. Va. Department of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Conners v. Hardy County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-16-459 (Jan. 14, 2000); Barrett v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-15-512 (Dec. 31, 1997). Toney v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2008-0533-LinED (Oct. 31, 2008); Stover v. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 04-CORR-259 (Sept. 24, 2004); Ritchie v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-181 (May 30, 1997); Ritchie v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-181 (May 30, 1997); Guthrie v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., Docket No. 95-HHR-297 (Jan. 31, 1996); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res./Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Propst v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources and Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 93-HHR-351 (Dec. 3, 1993)
|
|
Keywords
|
Classification Specification; Reallocation; Job Duties
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was requested by the DOP to provide a Position Description Form for her Supervisor 3 position so DOP could conduct a classification review. DOP determined that the initial approval of the position in the Supervisor 3 classification granted in November of 2014 was incorrect. DOP determined that the Supervisor 3 position should be reallocated to the Administrative Services Assistant 2 (ASA 2) classification. Grievant contested the reallocation of her position and argues that the best fit for her position remains the Supervisor 3 classification. Grievant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the ASA 2 classification was not the best fit for her position. The Grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again