Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Michael
|
|
Last Name
|
Brown et al
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/31/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-1474-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Parole Services AND Division of Personnel
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Parole Officers
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Timeliness
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether this grievance should be dismissed for untimeliness.
|
|
Outcome
|
Untimely
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(c)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(c)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Higginbotham v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 97-DPS-018 (Mar. 31, 1997); Harvey v. W. Va. Bureau of Emp’t Programs, Docket No. 96-BEP-484 (Mar. 6, 1998); White v. Logan Bd. of Ed., Docket No. 2017-0899-LogED (May 9, 2018)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Timelines; Untimely Filed; Appeal; Notice
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent DOC’s Motion to Dismiss contends that this grievance is untimely because it was not initiated within the timelines set forth in WEST VIRGINIA CODE § 6C-2-4(c)(1). Grievants are employed by Respondent DOC as Parole Officers. On September 20, 2020, Grievants, and Respondents, via legal counsel, participated in an unsuccessful mediation session. Grievants filed their level three appeal in May 2022. Approximately seven (7) months after the notice of the Order of Unsuccessful Mediation, entered on September 22, 2021. Counsel for Grievants presents for consideration the contention that proper notice was not established. The Order was mailed to the addresses of sixteen individual Grievants, and to the address of Grievants’ legal counsel.
An Order of Unsuccessful Mediation was addressed and sent by U. S. Mail service to each individual Grievant, and to the law office recognized as providing legal representation to the Grievants. Grievants had specific and/or constructive notice of the unsuccessful mediation. The argument that one or two individual Grievants may not have received his/her notice is not found to be an acceptable justification to remedy a seven (7) month lapse of time for the entire group of Grievants to appeal to level three.
It is established by a preponderance of the evidence that the level three appeal of the instant grievance was untimely filed. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion is GRANTED, and this grievance is DISMISSED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again