Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Samantha
|
|
Last Name
|
Ball
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/3/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0387-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways/ AND
|
|
Employment Type
|
ST-State
|
|
Job Title
|
Office Assistant II
|
|
Topics
|
Reallocation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent was arbitrary and
capricious in reversing its decision to reallocate Grievant’s
position.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Goodman, et. al. v. DOH, Docket No. 2019-0863-CONS (June
22, 2021); Romano v. Southern West Virginia Community and
Technical College, Docket No. 2020-0556-SWCTC (Feb. 20,
2020); Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning &
Dev. Agency, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985); W. Va.
Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681
(1993); 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); Broaddus v. W. Va. Div.
of Human Serv., Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31,
1990)
|
|
Keywords
|
Reallocation; Classification; Class Specification; Position
Description Form; Job Duties; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed by the Division of Highways as an Office
Assistant 3 (OA3). Grievant asserts her position should be
reallocated to an Office Assistant Coordinator (OAC) because
her supervision duties meet the OAC classification specification
of “lead worker.” Yet, the classification specifications for OA3
also list “lead worker.” Grievant failed to prove that the best fit
for her position is an OAC, as her predominant duties are more
aligned with an OA3. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again