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:


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 - LIV Bureau Exhibits
Ex. 1 -
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