ARISH NELSON,
Grievant,
v.
DOCKET NO. 00-BEP-282
BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS/
US BENEFITS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Grievant, Arish Nelson, is employed by the West Virginia Bureau of Employment
Programs (the Bureau). She filed the following grievance against the Bureau on or about
April 5, 2000:
Payroll check(s) being mailed to home address. No written formal policy
or requirement mandating the mailing of payroll checks to home address.
Would not be outside Bureau policy/regulations to provide payroll check at
place of employment.
Relief sought: Receipt of payroll check at location of employment.
The grievance was denied at levels one and two. The Bureau made a Motion to Dismiss
the grievance at level three, and a hearing was held on that issue on May 23, 2000, before
Jack DeBolt, grievance evaluator, who denied the motion. Thereafter, a level three hearing
was held on June 14, 2000. Mr. DeBolt recommended the grievance be denied by
decision August 2, 2000, and Commissioner William F. Vieweg, concurred by letter dated
August 14, 2000. Grievant appealed to level four on August 25, 2000, and a hearing washeld on October 5, 2000, at which time this grievance became mature for decision.
Grievant appeared
pro se, and the Bureau was represented by Patricia J. Shipman, Esq.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
LII Bureau Exhibits
Ex. 1 -
March 23, 2000 memorandum from Mark S. Miller to Arish Nelson.
LIV Bureau Exhibits
Ex. 1 -
W. Va. Bureau of Employment Programs Policy and Procedures Manual,
Salary Information.
Testimony
Grievant testified in her own behalf, and presented the testimony of Paul Nelson.
The Bureau presented the testimony of Mark Miller.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The material facts in this grievance are not in dispute and set forth in the following
findings.
1. Prior to mid-April, 2000, employees with the Bureau were hand-delivered their
payroll checks at their employment location, or had the option of having their checks direct
deposited to their bank of choice.
2. Commencing April 15, 2000, hand-delivery of payroll checks ceased, and
checks not direct deposited began to be mailed to the employees' designated home
addresses.
3. Grievant lives in a neighborhood which has poor or irregular mail service, and
she fears her payroll check may be stolen from her mailbox. 4. At the time of the level four hearing, Grievant had not missed getting her
payroll check by mail.
5. Grievant does not wish to have her payroll check direct deposited in any
bank.
6. The Bureau does not allow employees to list the Bureau or their individual
places of employment for purposes of receiving personal mail at work.
DISCUSSION
Grievant contends the change of policy at the Bureau regarding hand-delivery of
payroll checks has caused her undue stress, resulted in loss of sleep, which has, in turn,
interfered with her job performance. The Bureau denies it has violated, misapplied, or
misinterpreted any rule, regulation, statute, or policy by changing its practice regarding
hand-delivery of payroll checks.
There is no doubt that Grievant's concerns are sincere and that the change in the
Bureau's policy has caused her great distress. However, she has failed to identify any
violation on the part of the Bureau in its decision to cease hand-delivering payroll checks.
There is no evidence of any discriminatory or inappropriate application of the Bureau's
payroll policy. Neither, despite Grievant's personal concerns, has she proven that the
current pay policy imposes a detriment to or interferes with her effective job performance
or her health and safety. An employee's belief that management's decisions are incorrect,
absent a threat to the employee's health or safety, does not confer upon him the right to
ignore or disregard the order, rule, or directive.
White v. W. Va. Bureau of Employment
Programs, Docket No. 99-BEP-496 (May 22, 2000).
Finally, any problems Grievant may have with the delivery of her mail is between her
and the Postal Service, not the Bureau, which clearly has no control over Grievant's
residential mail delivery.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Grievant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Bureau misapplied or misinterpreted any statute, policy, rule, regulation or written
agreement under which she works.
2. Grievant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Bureau's policy has been implemented in a discriminatory way or in a way which
constitutes a substantial detriment to or interference with effective job performance or the
health and safety of the Grievant.
3. An employee's belief that management's decisions are incorrect, absent a
threat to the employee's health or safety, does not confer upon him the right to ignore or
disregard the order, rule, or directive.
White v. W. Va. Bureau of Employment Programs,
Docket No. 99-BEP-496 (May 22, 2000).
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. 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.
__________________________________
MARY JO SWARTZ
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: October 31, 2000