Database Search Result Details

First Name Timothy
Last Name Trail, et al.
Decision Date 10/31/2022
Docket Number 2022-0347-CONS
ALJ WBM
Respondent Division of Rehabilitation Services/ AND Division of Personnel
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Human Resources Associate
Topics Classification
Primary Issues Whether Grievants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the HR Generalist 1 classification is the best fit for their positions.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-6.4.a.1; W. Va. Code R. §143-1-3.72
Related Cases Hayes v. W. Va. Department of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989); Dillon v. Bd. of Ed. of County of Mingo, 171 W. Va. 631, 301 S.E.2d 588 (1983); Keys v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, Docket No. 06-DEP-307 (April 20, 2007); Kuntz/Wilford v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-301 (March 26, 1997)
Keywords Classification; Reallocation; Job Responsibilities and Duties; Position Description Form; Job Audit
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant’s Trail and Arvis hold positions which are placed in the HR Associate classification. They argue that their positions should be reallocated to the HR Generalist 1 classification which they believe better fits their duties and responsibilities. After several reviews, the DOP determined that Grievants’ positions were properly allocated to the HR Associate classification. Grievants challenge that determination. DOP demonstrated that the positions held by both Grievants were all allocated to the HR Associate classification when they were fully examined in 2018 as a result of the State Personnel Board (“SPB”) approving a new classification series for Human Resource positions. Grievants did not prove that a significant change had occurred in the duties of the position which would require reallocation, or that the DOP’s determination that the best fit for the positions is in the HR Associate classification was clearly wrong.

Back to Results Search Again