KEITH JENKINS,
                  Grievant,

v.                                                      Docket No. 99-BOT-502

BOARD OF TRUSTEES/WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY,
                  Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

      Grievant, Keith Jenkins, employed by the Board of Trustees as a Maintenance Mechanic at West Virginia University (Respondent), filed a level four grievance appeal on December 1, 1999, after receiving a level two decision denying his request for reclassification.   (See footnote 1)  Grievant's representative, Mary Linn of WVEA, and Respondent's counsel, Samuel R. Spatafore, Assistant Attorney General, agreed to submit the matter for decision based upon the lower-level record, supplemented with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, filed on or before March 1, 2000.
      Findings of Fact
      1.      Grievant has been employed by West Virginia University at the Physical Plant for approximately seven years. At all times pertinent to this grievance he has been classified as a Maintenance Mechanic, pay grade 12.
      2.      As a Maintenance Mechanic, Grievant is permitted to operate, but not to drive, a crane truck. A commercial driver's license (CDL) is required to drive such a vehicle, and while Grievant holds this license, it is not required by his job description.
      3.      Sometime during the Summer of 1999, Grievant's immediate supervisor, Gary Boyd, inquired whether he would be interested in a position upgrade which wouldallow him to drive the crane truck. Grievant agreed to the proposed change.
      4.      In August 1999, Mr. Boyd submitted a revised Position Information Questionnaire (PIQ) adding driving the crane truck as one of Grievant's responsibilities, and requesting that Grievant's position be upgraded to Skilled Craft Specialist, pay grade 13. The PIQ was approved by Paul Cole, the second level supervisor, Ralph Beatty, Assistant Director of the Physical Plant, and was sent to Paul Walden, Interim Director of the Physical Plant, for approval.
      5.      Mr. Walden denied the request, concluding that an upgrade of the position was not warranted or necessary, citing an upcoming reorganization of the Physical Plant and financial considerations.
      6.      During 1999, Grievant voluntarily drove the crane truck approximately six (6) times. The total time spent driving was estimated by Grievant to be less than ten (10) hours.
      7.      Requests for a temporary upgrade and differential pay submitted for the time Grievant drove the crane truck were not granted.
      8.      Respondent's Policy WVU-HR-21 “Interim Promotion/Temporary Upgrade of a Classified Position” requires that temporary upgrades be no less than four (4) weeks, nor more than twelve (12) consecutive months in duration.
      9.      No interim promotion or temporary upgrade had been requested for Grievant prior to his driving the crane truck.
Discussion
      W. Va. Code §18-29-2(a) defines “grievance” as follows:
any claim by one or more affected employees of the governingboards of higher education, state board of education, county boards of education, regional educational service agencies and multi-county vocational centers alleging a violation, a misapplication or a misinterpretation of the statutes, policies, rules, regulations or written agreements under which such employees work, including any violation, misapplication or misinterpretation regarding compensation, hours, terms and conditions of employment, employment status or discrimination; any discriminatory or otherwise aggrieved application of unwritten policies or practices of the board; any specifically identified incident of harassment or favoritism; or any action, policy or practice constituting a substantial detriment to or interference with effective classroom instruction, job performance or the health and safety of students or employees.

      A review of the grievance statement, and of Grievant's testimony given at level two, establishes that Grievant does not allege he is misclassified. He simply asserts that his supervisors indicated a desire to have another employee available to drive a crane truck. They were aware that he already held the appropriate license, and he was willing to submit to the drug tests, and to accept the additional responsibilities. Grievant confirms that he was never promised an upgrade, only that one would be requested. Grievant does not dispute that driving the crane truck is not included in his current job description, and he confirms that he has not been asked to drive the truck since the requested upgrade was denied by Mr. Walden. Grievant does not allege that Mr. Walden improperly denied the requested upgrade. Grievant's desire to assume additional responsibilities, and thereby attain a position upgrade, is not a grievable matter.                                     Grievant supports his request for compensation at pay grade 13 for the time spent driving the crane truck by citing Respondent's Policy WVU-HR-21, “[w]hen significant changes in duties and responsibilities of a position occur on a temporary basis, an interim promotion or temporary upgrade may be requested by submitting an updated positiondescription.” That policy further defines a temporary upgrade as one lasting at least four (4) weeks, but no longer than twelve (12) consecutive months. Grievant drove the crane truck less than ten (10) hours during a six (6) month period of time, and the request for a temporary upgrade was not approved prior to the activity.
      Further, Grievant testified that he had voluntarily driven the crane truck following his discussions with Mr. Cole and Mr. Boyd. The Grievance Board has previously held that an employee may not voluntarily assume duties beyond those of his or her job description, and then demand additional compensation for having completed the duties. Reed v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-20-111 (May 27, 1999); Catron v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-060 (July 11, 1995); Anderson v. Gilmer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-11-197 (Aug. 1, 1995).
      In addition to the foregoing findings of fact and discussion, it is appropriate to make the following conclusions of law.

Conclusions of Law
      1.      W. Va. Code §18-29-2(a) defines “grievance” as:
any claim . . . alleging a violation, misapplication, or a misinterpretation of the statutes, policies, rules, regulations or written agreements under which such employees work, including any violation, misapplication or misinterpretation regarding compensation, hours, terms and conditions of employment, employment status or discrimination; any discriminatory or otherwise aggrieved application of unwritten policies or practices of the board; any specifically identified incident of harassment or favoritism; or any action, policy or practice constituting a substantial detriment to or interference with effective classroom instruction, job performance or the health and safety of students or employees.

      2.      A request by an employee to assume additional responsibilities, which, ifgranted, would result in a position upgrade and attendant pay increase, but is properly denied by the appropriate supervisor, is not a grievable matter.
      
      Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
      Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the Circuit Court of Monongalia 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: April 26, 2000 __________________________________
SUE KELLER
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE


Footnote: 1
      The record does not include a level one grievance form or decision. Grievant elected to bypass consideration at level three, as is permitted by W. Va. Code §18-29-4(c).