details - Public Grievance Board

First Name	Kimberly
Last Name	Gibson
Decision Date	9/29/2022
Docket Number	2022-0306-DOC
ALJ	LRB
Respondent	Division of Rehabilitation Services/ AND Division of Personnel
Employment Type	ST-State
Job Title	HR Generalist 2
Topics	Classification
Primary Issues	Whether Grievant proved the Division of Personnel’s classification determination was arbitrary and capricious.
Outcome	Denied
Statutes	W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-3.9; W. Va. Code § 29-6-1; W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-4; W. Va. Code § 5F-1-2
Related Cases	Hayes v. W.Va. Dep’t of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88- 038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989); Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 90-H- 433 (Mar. 28, 1991); Stihler v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 07-DNR-360D (Feb. 6, 2009); Hatfield v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-077 (April 15, 1996); Graham v. Nicholas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-34-224 (Jan. 6, 1994)
Keywords	Classification; Class Specification; Pay Plan Policy; Job Responsibilities; Reallocation; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis	Grievant is employed by the Division of Rehabilitation Services in a position classified as a Human Resources Generalist 2. Grievant believes the position she occupies should be classified as an Administrative Services Manager 1. Grievant trained under the former manager of the HR section who was in a position classified as an ASM 2 and she now contends to have taken on all his duties after his retirement. While Grievant may have additional responsibility not previously performed, the position occupied by Grievant does not possess the requisite level of duties and responsibilities of a manager to meet the Division of Personnel’s definition. The West Virginia Division of Personnel (DOP) reviewed the position no less than four times and each time came to the same conclusion with regard to the appropriate classification of the position as an HR Generalist 2. Grievant was unable to demonstrate that the position she occupies engages in the kind and/or level of work necessary to reallocate the position. Grievant failed to prove the DOP’s classification determination was arbitrary and capricious. This grievance is DENIED.

Database Search Result Details