SHIRLEY SHORT,

      Grievant,

v.                                                      Docket No. 99-HHR-415

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES/
HOPEMONT HOSPITAL, and
DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,

       Respondents.

DECISION

      Shirley Short (Grievant) initiated this grievance on August 30, 1999, alleging she is misclassified. She seeks reclassification from Office Assistant I (OAI) to Office Assistant II (OAII). The grievance was denied at level one on August 31, 1999, and at level two on September 7, 1999. A level three hearing was held on September 21, 1999, followed by a decision denying the grievance dated September 23, 1999. Grievant appealed to level four on October 7, 1999. After two continuances granted for good cause shown, the parties agreed on January 31, 2000, to submit this matter for a decision based upon the lower level record, and this matter became mature for consideration on that date. Grievant represented herself; the Department of Health and Human Resources was represented by counsel, Dennise Smith; and the Division of Personnel (Personnel) was represented by counsel, Stephanie Schulz.
      The following findings of fact are made from a preponderance of the evidence of record.

Findings of Fact
      1.      Grievant has been employed as an OAI at Hopemont Hospital since approximately 1992 or 1993, and she is assigned to the Information Center.
      2.      Grievant's duties fall into two major categories. She performs receptionist type duties related to answering the phone and dealing with visitors, and she provides office support to the director of nursing, the quality assurance staff development officer, and the housekeeping and dietary supervisors.
      3.      The phone calls Grievant receives are predominantly from medical personnel, such as pharmacists and doctors, requesting information regarding patients, and personal calls for staff at Hopemont Hospital. Grievant must direct calls to the appropriate person or department through a switchboard or paging system, requiring her to be familiar with all employees in each department of the facility. When personal calls come in, Grievant must ascertain whether or not it is an emergency, and, if not, take a message for the staff member.
      4.      Grievant's work for the director of nursing includes entering data on forms, keeping track of absenteeism for entry onto prepared forms, entering information onto monthly staff schedules, and keeping track of overtime. She also “strips” patient charts, which consists of periodically removing information to be placed in permanent files, requiring Grievant to know how long each type of record must be kept in the patient chart. Once Grievant “strips” the charts, the information she has removed is bound together and filed by other employees. Grievant also types routine and confidential correspondence for the director of nursing. Much of this work involves transferring data from one form to another.      5.      For the other administrators listed above, Grievant performs duties such as typing schedules, menus, correspondence, and reports. At the direction of the quality assurance supervisor, she typed revisions to the policy and procedures manual. These duties also include transferring data from one form to another.
      6.      Grievant spends approximately four hours per week performing miscellaneous duties including sending faxes, revising schedules, maintaining records necessary to keeping track of residents of the facility, keeping contact with local emergency agencies during fire alarms until it is determined whether there is a real emergency or a false alarm, and signing out vehicles and residents.
      7.      Grievant is highly valued by her supervisors, who support her request for reclassification.
Discussion

      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 generally, Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). Personnel job specifications generally contain five sections as follows: 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/lesscritical. Captain v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-471 (Apr. 4, 1991). For these purposes, the "Nature of the Work" section of a classification specification is its most critical section. See generally, 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 and Human 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, Personnel'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 Office Assistant I and Office Assistant II are reproduced below for comparison.
OFFICE ASSISTANT I

Nature of Work       Under close supervision, performs entry level work in a variety of routine clerical tasks within prescribed procedures and guidelines. Performs related work as required.

Distinguishing Characteristics
      Performs routine clerical tasks as a predominant portion of the job. Tasks may include sorting and filing documents, typing routine forms and labels, sorting and distributing mail. May enter data using a video display terminal and make inquiries into the system; data work is limited to a few simple applications.      At this level, the predominant tasks are of a routine nature with well-structured directives for completing the work. Work is learned through repetition and requires ability to learn the steps in the series of related tasks, which are typically a part of a broader work function. Work is reviewed for completeness and accuracy or provides an inherent system of checks. Contacts are typically informational; position is limited in authority for independent action.

Examples of Work       Sorts and files documents numerically, alphabetically or according to other predetermined classification criteria; pulls material from files upon request.       Types routine correspondence, forms, and labels.       Operates office equipment such as adding machines, electrical calculating or copying machine or other machines requiring no special previous training.       Answers telephone; takes messages; routes calls; answers general information questions.       Receives, sorts and distributes incoming and outgoing mail and performs messenger work.       Inventories, stocks and distributes office supplies.       Counts, collates, codes, sorts, staples and inserts forms in envelopes.       Posts information to log or ledger for record-keeping purposes.       Collects, receipts, counts and deposits money.       May record and maintain time/attendance records for unit or section.       May enter data into a video display terminal; may make inquiries into the system; may run a mailing list.       May microfilm documents for record maintenance.

OFFICE ASSISTANT II


Nature of Work
      Under general supervision, performs full performance level work in multiple-step clerical tasks calling for interpretation and application of office procedures, rules and regulations. Performs related work as required.

Distinguishing Characteristics
      Performs tasks requiring interpretation and adaptation of office procedures as the predominant portion of the job. Tasks may include posting information to logs or ledgers, and checking for completeness, typing a variety of documents, and calculating benefits. May use a standard set of commands, screens, or menus to enter, access and update or manipulate data.

      At this level, the predominant tasks require the understanding of the broader scope of the work function, and requires an ability to apply job knowledge or a specific skill to a variety of related tasks requiring multiple steps or decisions. Day-to-day tasks are routine,but initiative and established procedures are used to solve unusual problems. The steps of each task allow the employee to operate with a latitude of independence. Work is reviewed by the supervisor in process, randomly or upon completion. Contacts are usually informational and intergovernmental.

Examples of Work
      Posts information such as payroll, materials used or equipment rental to a log or ledger; may be required to check for completeness; performs basic arithmetic calculations (addition, subtraction, division or multiplication); corrects errors if the answer is readily available or easily determined.       Maintains, processes, sorts and files documents numerically, alphabetically, or according to other predetermined classification criteria; reviews files for data and collects information or statistics such as materials used or attendance information.       Answers telephone, screens calls, takes messages and complaints; gives general information to callers when possible, and specific information whenever possible.       Receives, sorts and distributes incoming and outgoing mail.       Operates office equipment such as adding machine, calculator, copying machine or other machines requiring no special previous training.       Types a variety of documents from verbal instruction, written or voice recorded dictation.       Collects, receipts, counts and deposits money.       Calculates benefits, etc., using basic mathematics such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and percentages.       Posts records of transactions, attendance, etc., and writes reports.       May compile records and reports for supervisor.       May operate a VDT using a set of standard commands, screens, menus and help instructions to enter, access and update or manipulate data in the performance of a variety of clerical duties; may run reports from the database.
      As explained by Lowell Basford, Assistant Director of Personnel's Classification and Compensation Unit, the critical difference between these two class specifications is that the OAII must interpret and apply policies and procedures and explain them to others, and is required to perform some independent analysis in performing certain tasks. The OAI, by comparison, performs work at the direction of a superior, without being called upon to interpret policies or procedures. Also, the OAI simply gives and receives basic information.       The undersigned finds that Grievant has failed to establish that the OAII class specification is the best fit for the duties she performs. As noted by Mr. Basford,Grievant relays basic information when receiving phone calls and routes them to the appropriate person, which is not truly “screening”, as Grievant stated in her level three testimony. Also, Personnel focused upon the nature of Grievant's contacts, which are largely informational and performed with little decision-making authority, as opposed to the higher level of contacts and authority contemplated within the OAII specification. Although Grievant does perform many tasks related to completing forms and compiling information, most of this work requires her to take information from one document and transfer it to another. There is little or no actual decision-making or problem-solving involved in the majority of her work, which is performed according to procedures set by her supervisors and the facility. Moreover, Grievant's testimony and her position description form do not contain any tasks which would call for independent interpretation and application of policies and procedures. Nearly all of Grievant's duties are performed at the direction of her superiors in conformance with established hospital procedures. In addition, all of her duties are accurately described in the “examples of work” portion of the OAI class specification.
      There is no question that Grievant is a capable and valued employee, as evidenced by the written recommendations of her supervisors submitted at level four, requesting that she be upgraded to the OAII classification. However, it is not the recommendations of these individuals that is the focus of this analysis; rather, it is whether or not the predominant duties Grievant performs fall within a class specification other than that to which she has been assigned. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Grievant is properly classified as an OAI.      Consistent with the foregoing findings and discussion, the following conclusions of law are appropriate.

Conclusions of Law

      1.      In order to prevail in a misclassification claim, a 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 classification to which she is currently assigned. See generally, Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). 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).
      2.      The "Nature of the Work" section of a classification specification is its most critical section. See generally, Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989).
      3.      Personnel'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.      The evidence establishes that the Office Assistant I class specification is the best fit for the duties Grievant performs, and she has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is misclassified.

      Accordingly, this 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, and 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.

Date:      February 28, 2000                  ___________________________________
                                          DENISE M. SPATAFORE
                                          Administrative Law Judge