MARY ANN YEVUTA,
                  Grievant,

v.                                                      Docket No. 99-HHR-474

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES and
DIVISION OF PERSONNEL
                  Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

      Grievant, Mary Ann Yevuta, employed by the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR or Respondent) as a Health and Human Resources (HHR) Specialist, filed a level one grievance on March 20, 1998, in which she complained that she was misclassified. She requested to be reclassified as a HHR Specialist, Senior, effective the date of her assignment to her current position. Review of the grievance was waived at levels one and two. The grievance was held in abeyance pending review of the HHR Specialist, Senior positions in the FACTS and RAPIDS Projects by the Division of Personnel (Personnel). Respondent DHHR denied the grievance following a level three hearing conducted on October 27, 1999, and the matter advanced to level four on November 9, 1999. Following continuances granted for good cause, a level four hearing was conducted in the Grievance Board's Morgantown office on May 3, 2000. Grievant was represented by Kevin Church, AFSCME, Respondent DHHR was represented by counsel, Dennise Smith, and Personnel was represented by Lowell T. Basford, Assistant Director. All parties declined the opportunity to file post-hearing proposed findings and conclusions, and the matter became mature for decision with the submission of the lower-level record on May 4, 2000.      The facts of this matter are undisputed and may be set forth as the following findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
      1.      Grievant is employed by DHHR/Bureau for Children and Families, and is presently assigned to the Family and Children Tracking System (FACTS) Project Unit, as a Health and Human Resources Specialist.
      2.      In September 1996, Grievant received a temporary upgrade when she was appointed to the position of HHR Specialist, Senior. While in this capacity, Grievant worked in the Charleston office developing the FACTS Project Unit.
      3.      In April 1997, Grievant applied for, and received, a position as HHR Specialist. Grievant was advised that to accept the position would result in a demotion in title because it was in a lower pay grade. Grievant did not incur any change in salary as a result of the transfer.
      4.      Grievant's duties include: developing , monitoring, and scheduling testing for FACTS applications prior to implementation; developing training materials and curriculum for FACTS; overseeing the implementation of FACTS, including providing field support, Help Desk, and consultation; providing input into development of policy and procedures; training users on application at all levels, from field workers to Office of Social Services administrators; developing assessment tools for training, and using these tools to evaluate the effectiveness of training and identifying emerging training needs; developing, monitoring, and scheduling training for office automation; training users on office automation; providing field support for office automation; developing and maintainingtraining records; working closely with Regional Directors and Community Service Managers to coordinate training for each region; scheduling application training; consulting with contractors for the system; participating in management meetings; performing as agency representative to community organizations or other governmental agencies relating to the FACTS application; demonstrating the system as needed; assisting with system enhancements such as adding New Youth services material and Adult Services which consists of advising programmers on policies and procedures, developing case flows, meeting with Office of Social Services staff, making policy recommendations as needed, developing pick lists, deciding on security categories, and ensuring that Grants Management is thorough and accurate; and providing training for CPS workers on the theory and practice of working with cases of child sexual abuse.
      5.      Grievant is assigned to a specific geographic area, as are five other HHR Specialists throughout the state, but provides her specific expertise statewide either in person, or via telephone, e-mail, etc.
      6.      The entire FACTS Project Unit is overseen by Kathy Hastings, HHR Specialist, Senior, who is Grievant's immediate supervisor.
      7.      Other employees classified as HHR Specialists who were given temporary upgrades during the development of another project unit also returned to their regional offices but were not demoted in title, and retain the classification of HHR Specialist, Senior.

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. Dept. 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/less critical. 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. Dept. 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. Dept 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. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d681, 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 Health and Human Resource Specialist and Health and Human Resource Specialist, Senior, are reproduced below for comparison.

HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST

Nature of Work

Under general supervision, performs work at the full-performance level by providing development of programs, as well as associated policy and procedures based on standards and regulations, administrative oversight of and complex technical assistance with a program or a particular major component of a statewide program, or major technical area specific to or characteristic of the Department of Health and Human Resources. Assures compliance with federal, state, and local regulations governing the program or technical area. Uses independent judgement to determine appropriate action taken to achieve desired results. Has responsibility for providing consultation on highly complex individual problem situations. Develops and delivers training programs related to assigned program or component. Monitors and evaluates the operation of the assigned program or program component. Exercises considerable latitude in determining approaches to problem solving. Work may be performed independently and/or in conjunction with other program or technical area staff. Performs related work as required.

Distinguishing Characteristics

The Health and Human Resources Specialist is distinguished for the Health and Human Resources Associate by the responsibility for development and management of a statewide program or operational area or significant segment of a major statewide program or operational area. This class is distinguished from the Health and Human Resources Specialist, Senior, by the fact that although the Specialist may oversee clerical or support staff in relation to the completion of his/her own work, this class does not function in a regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over professional classes as a significantsegment of their total assignment nor does he/she have responsibility related to entire programmatic or operational systems.


Examples of Work

Analyzes laws and regulations governing program or technical area and applies them appropriately to resolve problems and assure compliance.
Interprets laws and regulations governing program or technical area for participants and staff.
Monitors changes in laws and regulations and advises participants and other staff.
Confers with inter- and intra- agency personnel to transact business or discuss information.
Collaborates on determining need for changes in procedures, guidelines, and formats; devises resolutions and changes, and monitors success.
Drafts program manuals, clarifying the wording and describing new procedures, etc., accurately.
Represents the program in the area of assignment with the agency and outside entities.
Has contact with federal, state, local program representatives and participants, or technical area personnel.
Completes related reports; may compile special and/or statistical reports, analyzing data and interpreting results.
May oversee the work of support staff or other specialists in relation to the completion of specific assignments.

HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST, SENIOR

Nature of Work

Under general supervision, performs work at the advanced level by providing administrative
coordination of and complex technical assistance in a component of a major statewide program, a statewide program in its entirety, or a major technical area specific to or characteristic of the Department of Health and Human Resources. Acts as liaison to facilitate problem resolution and assure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, laws, policies, and procedures governing the program or technical area. Has primary responsibility for developing standards for major systems and for monitoring and/or evaluation of major complex systems or multi-program operations. May consult on highlycomplex individual situations that potentially have significant impact on systems or involve sensitive legal issues. Has responsibility for development and issuance of comprehensive
training programs to insure basic competency and continued development of skills, knowledge and abilities relevant to the systems for which she/he are assigned responsibility. Uses independent judgement in determining action taken in both the administrative and operational aspects of the area of assignment. Exercises considerable latitude in varying methods and procedures to achieve desired results. May supervise or act as lead worker for other professional staff. Performs related work as required.

Distinguishing Characteristics

The Health and Human Resources Specialist, Senior, is distinguished from the Health and Human Resources Specialist by the broader scope of administrative oversight and responsibility for planning and operational aspects of a system of program or technical areas. This level may function in a regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over professional, paraprofessional and clerical classes and, if not, must have responsibility for the conceptualization and development of major complex program and/or operational systems.

Examples of Work

Interprets federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines for staff which provides services; guides others in developing and utilizing plans and recommends methods of improvement.
Effects or recommends operational changes to facilitate efficient and effective accomplishment of goals or delivery of service.
Informs director of technical area, program, or service deficiencies and recommends improvements.
Consults with other program or technical area staff, supervisors, or managers concerning projects and priorities.
Develops rules, policies, and legislation regarding specific work projects.
Reads, reviews, and responds to correspondence or distributes to appropriate staff. Develops research, information, or training programs.
Evaluates program or technical area effectiveness.
Writes, edits, or contributes to policy and procedure manuals.
Has contact with federal, state, local program representatives and officials, Department of Health and Human Resources management and staff, and legislature.
Plans and develops budget requests and short-and-long-range work plans.
May lead or supervise professional and support staff.

      In the instant case, Grievant has failed to demonstrate that DOP's determination that the Health and Human Resources Specialist classification is the "best fit" for her duties is "clearly wrong." While Grievant's duties are important, and indeed essential, to the functioning of the FACTS Project Unit, these duties are in the area of training, consultation, and technical assistance. While Grievant and her five colleagues now function to implement the Project Unit they developed, she does not function as a lead worker or manage a major program component, thus she cannot be classified as a Health and Human Resources Specialist, Senior.
      Mr. Basford explained at level four that Grievant does not meet the criteria for the HHR Specialist, Senior, classification because she is not a lead worker and does not have responsibility related to an entire programmatic or operational system, the two characteristics which distinguish the Senior classification. Addressing Grievant's assertion that other employees retained the HHR Specialist, Senior classification after returning to their assigned field sites, Mr. Basford testified that unlike Grievant, those individuals were not transferred back to the lower-level positions, and that DOP had not been advised of the change in their duties and responsibilities. He concluded that they, not Grievant, were improperly classified.
      Both Grievant and Ms. Hastings opined that Grievant is responsible for a portion of the statewide program; however, the evidence establishes that it is Ms. Hastings who is responsible for the administrative coordination and management of the FACTS Project. By comparison, while Grievant assists in the implementation of the program, she does not function in a regularly assigned lead or supervisory capacity over professional classes asa significant segment of her total assignment, nor does she have responsibility related to the entire programmatic or operational system. Consistent with the HHR Specialist job description, Grievant is responsible for providing consultation on highly complex individual problem situations, develops and delivers training, monitors, and evaluates the operation of the assigned program.       There is no question that Grievant is a capable and valued employee; however, the predominant duties Grievant performs fall squarely within the class specification to which she has been assigned. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Grievant is properly classified as an HHR Specialist.
      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. Dept. 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 Work" section of a classification specification is its most critical section. See generally, Dollison v. W. Va. Dept. 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. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993).
      4.       The evidence establishes that the Health and Human Resource Specialist classification 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 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 §29-5A-4(b) to serve a copy of the appeal petition upon the Grievance Board. The appealing party must also provide the Grievance Board with the civil action number so that the record can be prepared and transmitted to the circuit court.

Date: May 17, 2000 _______________________________________
                   Sue Keller
       Senior Administrative Law Judge