v. Docket No. 00-HHR-077
Respondents.
Evelyn Jordan (Grievant) is employed by the West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families (BCF), as a Secretary I in BCF's
Webster Springs office. She filed this action on December 6, 1999, alleging she should
be classified as an Administrative Services Assistant I. This grievance was denied at Level
I, on December 10, 1999; and at Level II, on December 17, 1999. A Level III hearing was
held on February 10, 2000. Grievant was represented be Steve Rutledge, BCF was
represented by Margaret Waybright, and the West Virginia Division of Personnel (DOP)
was represented by Assistant Director for Compensation and Classification Lowell Basford.
On February 18, 2000, this grievance was denied at Level III by BCF Commissioner Jack
Frazier.
The parties agreed that this grievance could be submitted at Level IV based upon
the record developed at the lower levels. The parties were given until July 7, 2000, to
submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, B. Allen Campbell, Esq. did so onbehalf of BCF, and this grievance became mature for decision on that date.
The following Findings of Fact pertinent to resolution of this matter have been
determined based upon a preponderance of the credible evidence of record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grievant is employed by BCF, at its Webster Springs office, as a Secretary
I.
2. Grievant spends 20 % of her normal work day performing secretarial duties;
25% of her normal work day supervising two full-time employees; 35% of her normal work
day coordinating equipment; and the remaining 20% of her normal work day performing
office manager duties.
3. The Secretary I classification is a combination of secretarial, clerical, and
administrative support duties.
DISCUSSION
As this grievance does not involve a disciplinary matter, Grievant has the burden of
proving her grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules of the W.
Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd., 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996);
Steadman v.
Securities and Exchange Comm'n, 450 U.S. 91 (1981);
Payne v. W. Va. Dep't of Energy,
Docket No. ENGY-88-015 (Nov. 2, 1988).
See W. Va. Code § 29-6A-6. A preponderance
of the evidence is defined as evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than
the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows
that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Black's Law Dictionary (6th
ed. 1991);
Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993). Where the evidence equally supports both sides, a party has not met
its burden of proof.
Id.
Grievant alleges that she should be classified as an Administrative Services
Assistant I, arguing that this classification best describes her duties. BCF and DOP
respond that she is correctly classified as a Secretary I because, while she performs a
combination of secretarial, clerical, and administrative support duties, her administrative
duties do not make up a predominant portion of her work day, and are therefore not class
controlling.
In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, she must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that her duties for the relevant period more closely
match those of another cited classification specification than the classification to which she
is currently assigned.
See Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No.
NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). DOP's classification specifications generally contain five
sections: first is the "Nature of Work" section; second, "Distinguishing Characteristics";
third, the "Examples of Work" section; fourth, the "Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" section;
and finally, the "Minimum Qualifications" section. These specifications are to be read in
"pyramid fashion," i.e., from top to bottom, with the different sections to be considered as
going from the more general/more critical to the more specific/less critical.
Captain v. W.
Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991). Therefore, the "Nature of the
Work" section of a classification specification is its most critical section.
See Dollison v.
W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989).
The key to the analysis is to ascertain whether the grievant's current classification
constitutes the "best fit" for her required duties.
Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health andHuman Resources, Docket No. 90-H-433 (Mar. 28, 1991). The predominant duties of the
position in question are class-controlling.
Broaddus v. W. Va. Div. of Human Serv., Docket
Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990). Importantly, DOP's interpretation and
explanation of the classification specifications at issue should be given great weight unless
clearly wrong.
See W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d
681, 687 (1993). The holding of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in
Blankenship presents a state employee contesting her classification with a substantial
obstacle to overcome in attempting to establish that she is misclassified.
The relevant portions of the classification specifications for Secretary I and
Administrative Services Assistant I are provided below.
SECRETARY I
Nature of Work
Under general supervision, at the full-performance level, relieves supervisor
of clerical and minor administrative duties, exercising discretion and
independent judgment. Necessity for dictation, familiarity with word
processors, and other special requirements vary depending upon
supervisor's preference. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
This class is distinguished from the Office Assistant series by the assignment
of support duties to a specific individual overseeing a section, or a division.
The incumbent composes routine correspondence for the supervisor,
screens calls and visitors and responds to inquiries requesting knowledge
regarding office procedure, policy and guidelines, and program information.
The position has limited authority to speak for the supervisor. At this level,
the work requires the knowledge necessary to complete complex procedural
assignments. Incumbent determines appropriate procedures from among a
variety of resources, methods, and processes. Incumbent is responsible for
his/her own work, and may assign and direct the work of others. Although
some tasks are defined and self-explanatory, the objectives, priorities, and
deadlines are made by the supervisor. Work is reviewed, usually uponcompletion, for conformance to guidelines. Contacts at this level are
frequent and often non routine and/or of a confidential or sensitive nature,
requiring tact and the ability to judge which inquiries can be answered or
must be referred.
Examples of Work
Responds to inquiries where knowledge of unit policy, procedure, and
guidelines is required.
Answers telephone, screens calls, and places outgoing calls.
Screens mail and responds to routine correspondence.
Signs, as directed, supervisor's name to routine correspondence, requisitions, and
other documents.
Schedules appointments and makes travel arrangements and reservations for
supervisor.
Takes and transcribes dictation, or transcribes from dictation equipment.
Composes form letters, routine correspondence, and factual reports.
Types reports, manuscripts, and correspondence using standard typewriter or word
processing equipment; proofreads and corrects to finished form.
Gathers, requests, and/or provides factual information, requiring reference to variety
of sources.
May delegate routine typing, filing, and posting duties to subordinate clerical
personnel.
May maintain basic bookkeeping records for grants, contract or state appropriated
funds.
May prepare payrolls, keep sick and annual leave records, act as receptionist and
perform other clerical duties as needed.
May attend meetings take notes and relay information; typically would not interpret
information or speak on behalf of supervisor.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ASSISTANT I
Nature of Work
Under general supervision, performs administrative work in providing support
services such as fiscal, personnel, payroll or procurement in a small division
or equivalent organization level. May function in an assist role or in a
specialized capacity in a large agency or department. Develops or assists in
developing and implements plans/procedures for resolving operational
problems and in improving administrative services. Work is typically varied
and includes inter- and intra-governmental and public contact. Performs
related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
Positions in this class are distinguished from the Administrative Services
Assistant II by the size of the unit served and by the independence of action
granted. Positions in a small agency or division may be responsible for a
significant administrative component; other positions assist an administrative
supervisor in a large state agency. Authority to vary work methods or policy
applications or to commit the agency to alternative course of action is limited.
Examples of Work
Confers with inter- and intra-agency personnel to transact business, gather
information, or discuss information; may be in a position with public or federal
government contact.
Gathers and compiles information for state records; writes reports, balances tally
sheets, and monitors inventories, purchases, and sales.
Updates records and contacts employees to gather information; represents the
supervisor or unit in the area of assignment at in-house meetings.
Maintains files of information in hard copy files or electronic format; runs reports for
regular or intermittent review.
Assists in determining the need for changes in procedures, guidelines and formats;
devises a solution; monitors the success of solutions by devising
quantitative/qualitative measures to document the improvement of services.
Assists in the writing of manuals in the area of assignment; clarifies the wording and
describes new procedures accurately.
Lowell Basford, DOP's Assistant Director for Compensation and Classification,
credibly testified that DOP considers Grievant to be correctly classified as a Secretary I;
that Grievant's position is a mixed one consisting of tasks that also fall under various other
classifications; that the Secretary I classification is a combination of secretarial, clerical,
and administrative support duties; and that, while she performs a combination of
secretarial, clerical, and administrative support duties, her administrative duties do not
make up a predominant portion of her work day, and are therefore not class controlling.
The preponderance of evidence in this grievance establishes that Grievant spends
20% of her normal work day performing secretarial duties; 25% of her normal work day
supervising two full-time employees; 35% of her normal work day coordinating equipment;and the remaining 20% of her normal work day performing office manager duties. The
undersigned is persuaded by Mr. Basford's analysis that none of these duties make up a
predominant portion of her work day, and are therefore not class controlling under
Broaddus, supra.
Finally, Grievant also sought to compare her duties to those of Alice Goff (Goff), the
Administrative Services Assistant I who is the Regional Comptroller of BCF's Region IV.
However, the evidence clearly showed that there is no Regional Comptroller in BCF's
Webster Springs office; that Goff reports to Grievant's supervisor's supervisor; and that
Goff's Position Description form reflects duties very different than Grievant's.
Accordingly, Grievant has not demonstrated that DOP's determination that she is
a Secretary I is clearly wrong, and that the Administrative Services Assistant I classification
specification is the best fit for her duties.
The following Conclusions of Law support the Decision reached.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. As this grievance does not involve a disciplinary matter, Grievant has the
burden of proving her grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules
of the W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd., 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996);
Payne
v. W. Va. Dep't of Energy, Docket No. ENGY-88-015 (Nov. 2, 1988).
See W. Va. Code §
29-6A-6.
2. In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, Grievant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her duties for the relevant period
more closely match those of another cited classification specification than the classificationto which she is currently assigned.
See Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources,
Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989).
3. DOP's interpretation and explanation of the classification specifications at
issue should be given great weight unless clearly wrong.
See W. Va. Dep't of Health v.
Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993).
4. Grievant did not demonstrate that the Administrative Services Assistant I
classification specification was a better fit for her duties than Secretary I.
Accordingly, the grievance is
DENIED.
Any party or the West Virginia Division of Personnel may appeal this decision to the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the circuit court of the county in which the grievance
occurred. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision.
W. Va. Code § 29-6A-7 (1998). Neither the West Virginia Education and State Employees
Grievance Board nor any of its Administrative Law Judges is a party to such appeal, and
should not be so named. However, the appealing party is required by W.Va. Code § 29A-
5-4(b) to serve a copy of the appeal petition upon the Grievance Board. The appealing
party must also provide the Board with the civil action number so that the record can be
prepared and properly transmitted to the appropriate circuit court.
ANDREW MAIER
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Dated July 10, 2000