SANDRA YOBY, et al.,
                  Grievant,

v.                                                      Docket No. 99-15-280

HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
                  Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

      Grievants, Sandra Yoby, Starry Milosicevic, Sara Swiger, and Linda Simmons, employed by the Hancock County Board of Education (HCBOE) as Cook III's, filed a level one grievance on April 19, 1999, in which they alleged a violation of W. Va. Code §18A-4- 8, and requested reclassification as Cook III/Computer Operator, with back pay, benefits, seniority, and interest on all monetary sums. James R. Piccirillo, Principal of Weirton Heights Elementary School, lacked authority to grant the grievance at level one. The grievance was granted in part at level two, to the extent that the Director of Food Services was instructed to resolve programming problems and provide additional training for Grievants. HCBOE waived consideration at level three, as is permitted by W. Va. Code §18-29-4(c), and the matter was advanced to level four on July 8, 1999. An evidentiary hearing was conducted in the Grievance Board's Wheeling office on September 9, 1999, at which time Grievants were represented by John E. Roush, Esq., of the West Virginia School Service Personnel Association, and HCBOE was represented by William T. Fahey,Esq., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. The matter became mature for decision on October 12, 1999, upon receipt of Grievants' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. HCBOE elected not to file post-hearing proposals.
      The facts of this matter are undisputed and may be set forth as the following findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
       1.      Grievants are all employed by HCBOE as Cook III's. Grievant Yoby is assigned full time at the central kitchen, Grievant Milosicevic is assigned half-time each to the central kitchen and Broadview Elementary School, Grievant Swiger is assigned to Jefferson Elementary School, and Grievant Simmons is assigned to Allison Elementary School.
      2.      HCBOE's position description for Cook III lists multiple duties, including:
5.      Complete daily production sheets, daily financial sheet, counts money and make[s] deposits as required by principal. Complete S[-]master at the end of each month [and,]

6.      P.O.S. schools: complete daily summary sheet, count money, collect payment and enter amount in computer, complete billing and S[-]master at end of each month.

      3.      Grievant Yoby estimates that 90% of her workday is dedicated to the operation of the computer. While Grievant Milosevic performs traditional cook duties at the central kitchen, she estimates that 90% of her time at Broadview is heavily weighted toward operation of the computer. Grievant Swiger estimates that computer work occupies 50% of her work day, while Grievant Simmons estimates that 90% of her time is spent with the computer.      4.      Grievants' computer work consists of entering data and preparing reports and other documents concerning a variety of information including, but not limited to, number and type of meals served, menus, milk purchases, student status, and payments. Grievants Swiger and Simmons also enter “point of service data” which involves the students picking up cards with their ID number when they arrive, and placing them in a box. Additionally, all Grievants periodically back-up the information to safeguard against a computer crash.
      5.      Grievants were provided an inservice training session on the use of the computer, but no other training, or skills, is required to use the equipment.
      6.      Initially, some difficulties arose with the software used in the school lunch program; however, reasonable efforts were made to correct those difficulties.

Discussion
      Because a misclassification grievance is non-disciplinary in nature, Grievants have the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Tasker v. Mineral County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-28-215 (Oct. 28, 1998); Midkiff v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-262 (Mar. 3, 1996); Perdue v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-27-280 (Mar. 29, 1993). In order to prevail on a claim that her position is misclassified, an employee must establish that her duties more closely match those of another classification defined by W. Va. Code §18A-4-8, other than that under which her position is categorized. Pierantozzi v. Brooke County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-05-061 (May 31, 1996); Porter v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-15-493 (May 24, 1994).
      “'Multiclassification' means personnel employed to perform tasks that involve thecombination of two or more class titles in this section. In such instances the minimum salary scale shall be the higher pay grade of the class title involved.” W. Va. Code §18A-4- 8. “When seeking a 'multi-classification', a grievant must establish, by the same standard, that her duties encompass those of all Code §18A-4-8 positions identified.” Kinstler v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-41-468 (June 23, 1993). However, the statutes are silent about what portion of time a worker must spend on an out-of-class task in order to deserve reclassification and/or multi-classification.
      “[S]imply being required to undertake some responsibilities normally associated with a higher classification, even regularly, does not render a grievant misclassified, per se.” Midkiff v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-262 (Mar. 19, 1996), citing Hamilton v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-077 (Apr. 15, 1991).
      W. Va. Code §18A-4-8 requires county boards of education to “review each service personnel employee's job classification annually and . . . reclassify all service employees as required by job classifications.” A board of education is obligated to classify school service personnel according to the duties performed by said employees. Taflan v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 15-86-099-2 (Jan. 12, 1987). Service workers cannot be assigned to perform duties not contemplated by the statutory description of their currently-held classifications or not stated in their official job descriptions. See Britton v. Preston County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-39-015 (Aug. 31, 1990).
      While an employee may be required to perform occasional “overlap” duties of another distinct class, if the assignments are specified in the employee's job description and are reasonably related to the duties contemplated by the statutory description of the presently-held classification, reclassification or multi-classification is not required. SeeBoyer v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-54-196 (Jan. 29, 1991). Conversely, when an employee regularly performs work in her own and another classification, multi- classification is required. Bailey v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-274-158 (Jan. 31, 1992).
      W. Va. Code §18A-4-8 establishes an employment term and class titles, with definitions, for service personnel. The class titles at issue are as follows:
      “Cook III” means personnel employed to prepare and serve meals, make reports, prepare requisitions for supplies, order equipment and repairs for a food service program of a school system.

      “Computer Operator” means qualified personnel employed to operate computers.

      “County boards of education may expand upon the W. Va. Code §18A-4-8 classification definitions in a manner which is consistent with those definitions.” Brewer v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-27-002 (Mar. 30, 1992); Pope and Stanley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-068 (July 31, 1992).
      Grievants argue that their duties entitle them to be classified as Cook III/Computer Operator. While they acknowledge that the Cook III classification definition includes the preparation of reports, Grievants assert that the nature and number of reports have increased with the introduction of the computer into their work area. Further, Grievants opine that even if it should be determined they are simply using a different tool to complete the same job, their claim for reclassification remains valid. To substantiate this point, Grievants note that an individual using a shovel to dig a ditch may be classified as “general maintenance” or “handyman”, but that an individual using a backhoe to dig a ditch isclassified as a “heavy equipment operator”. Grievants conclude that their situation is similar to the heavy equipment operator in that they both use advanced tools to more easily accomplish a task which could be completed with simpler tools, resulting in the task being entitled to a higher classification.
      HCBOE denies that Grievants are entitled to multiclassification because the classification description for Cook III provides for the preparation of reports, and does not limit that duty to manual preparation. Secondly, HCBOE notes that none of Grievants have applied for competency testing as a Computer Operator. Thirdly, no specialized skill or computer training is required for Grievants' use of the tool. Finally, HCBOE asserts that it does not employ any individual in the classification of Computer Operator, although computers are widely used by service personnel and others throughout the county.
      Although Grievants now use computers to complete their report and record-keeping duties, they are not computer operators. As noted in Ellison v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-10-258 (Sept. 18, 1997), “[i]f everyone in the school system who utilized a personal computer to perform her duties were a Computer Operator, it is likely that nearly every secretary and every accountant, and many others, would be multiclassified.” Grievants were not hired to operate computers, they were hired to function as Cooks. The position description for Cook III clearly provides that an employee in that classification will be responsible for record-keeping and filing reports regarding the amounts of food consumed and types and methods of payment for meals. “These duties are critical to the overall operation of the food service program of a school system and are reflective of the duties of a Cook III.” Porter, supra. As in Ellison, Grievants' use of a personal computer is merely incidental to their primary performance as Cooks III, and doesnot impact upon their classification. See Robinson v. Nicholas County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-34-197 (Mar. 25, 1994).
      In addition to the foregoing findings of fact and discussion, the following conclusions of law support the decision reached.

Conclusions of Law
      1.      Because a misclassification grievance is non-disciplinary in nature, Grievants have the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Tasker v. Mineral County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-28-215 (Oct. 28, 1998); Midkiff v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-262 (Mar. 3, 1996); Perdue v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-27-280 (Mar. 29, 1993).
      2.      In order to prevail on a claim that her position is misclassified, an employee must establish that her duties more closely match those of another classification defined by W. Va. Code §18A-4-8, other than that under which her position is categorized. Pierantozzi v. Brooke County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-05-061 (May 31, 1996); Porter v. Hancock County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-15-493 (May 24, 1994).
      3.      “When seeking a 'multi-classification', a grievant must establish, by the same standard, that her duties encompass those of all Code §18A-4-8 positions identified.” Kinstler v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-41-468 (June 23, 1993).
      4.      “[S]imply being required to undertake some responsibilities normally associated with a higher classification, even regularly, does not render a grievant misclassified, per se.” Midkiff, supra.
      5.      While an employee may be required to perform occasional “overlap” duties of another distinct class, if the assignments are specified in the employee's job descriptionand are reasonably related to the duties contemplated by the statutory description of the presently-held classification, reclassification or multi-classification is not required. See Boyer v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-54-196 (Jan. 29, 1991).
      6.      W. Va. Code §18A-4-8 defines “Cook III” as “personnel employed to prepare and serve meals, make reports, prepare requisitions for supplies, order equipment and repairs for a food service program of a school system.”
      7.       W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 defines “Computer Operator” as “qualified personnel employed to operate computers.”
      8.      “County boards of education may expand upon the W. Va. Code §18A-4-8 classification definitions in a manner which is consistent with those definitions.” Brewer v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-27-002 (Mar. 30, 1992); Pope and Stanley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-068 (July 31, 1992).
      9.      Grievants have failed to prove that they are entitled to reclassification as Cook III/Computer Operator.
      Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the Circuit Court of Hancock County. Any such appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision. W.Va. Code §18-29-7. 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 14, 2000 __________________________________
SUE KELLER
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE