DAVID TIGNOR and LINDA BLAIR,
            Grievants,

v.                                                       Docket No. 00-DOE-114

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
            Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

      Grievants, Linda Blair and David Tignor, are employed by the West Virginia Department of Education ("DOE"). They are grieving the change in their classifications which occurred on July 1, 1999. They allege they are misclassified, they are not being properly compensated for the duties they perform, and DOE is in violation of W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18. The relief sought has changed over time without objection from Respondent. Grievants currently seek to be classified as Buyers and placed on the Kanawha County salary scale as F-3's with back pay and pre-judgement interest.
      A Level II hearing was held on March 3, 2000, and a Decision denying the grievance was issued on March 23, 2000. Subsequently, Grievants appealed to the Grievance Board on April 20, 2000. A Level IV hearing was held on June 12, 2000, and this case became mature for decision on June 23, 2000, after receipt of the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.   (See footnote 1) 
Background Information

      In 1999, the State Legislature amended W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18(b) which now states the following:
      This grievance is the result of DOE's reclassification of Grievants pursuant to this directive.
Issues and Arguments

      Grievants argue their current classification of Accountant III is incorrect and does not accurately describe their duties.   (See footnote 2)  They believe they should be classified as Buyers and paid as such, pursuant to the Kanawha County pay scale. Respondent notes Grievants' duties do not fall easily into any one category, but maintain the best fit for their duties is Accountant III. Respondent noted at the Level IV hearing that probably the best fit for Grievants was the Accountant II classification, but Respondent did not choose to place Grievants in this lower pay category. Respondent asserts Grievants do not perform the duties of a Buyer as they merely assist others to accomplish these duties. Respondent also maintains Grievants do not execute the duties outlined on the statutory description or Kanawha County's Job Description for a Buyer.
      Additionally, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge questioned the parties about the need for Grievant Tignor to be multi-classified as he testified his "Buyer" duties comprised only fifty percent of his time. DOE objected to this possible multi-classification as it did not believe Grievant Tignor's duties warranted this change. Grievant Tignor didnot object to multi-classification as long as it did not result to a decrease in pay, and noted he did perform multiple duties.
      After a detailed review of the record in its entirety, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact.
Findings of Fact

      1.      Grievant Blair has worked for DOE for approximately fifteen years. Prior to her reclassification she was most recently classified, pursuant to DOE's classification system, as a Buyer Supervisor. After Grievant Blair received the position many of the duties were switched with other workers; thus, DOE's Buyer Supervisor Job Description does not accurately describe Grievant Blair's duties. She works in Kanawha County.
      2.      Grievant Tignor has worked for DOE for approximately twelve years. Prior to his reclassification he was most recently classified, pursuant to DOE's classification system, as a Buyer. Grievant Tignor only works fifty percent of his time with purchase orders. The rest of the time he functions as a courier, maintains DOE's fleet of vehicles as well as the building facilities, and assumes responsibility for the inventory accounts for DOE goods.   (See footnote 3)  He works in Kanawha County.
      3.      The main duties of Grievants are to coordinate, process, review, and account for purchase requisitions; answer questions about procuring goods; match invoices to purchase orders; and maintain their portion of the credit card purchasing system whichincludes reconciling items and resolving discrepancies. Grt. Ex. No. 2, at Level II; Test. of Grievants, Level II and IV Hearing; Test. Philip Uy, Level IV Hearing; Test. Mike McKown, Level II Hearing.
      4.      W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 defines a Buyer as: "personnel employed to review and write specifications, negotiate purchase bids and recommend purchase agreements for materials and services that meet predetermined specifications at the lowest available costs."
      5.      W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 defines Accountant II as: "personnel employed to maintain accounting records and to be responsible for the accounting process associated with billing, budgets, purchasing and related operations," and Accountant III as: "personnel who are employed in the county board office to manage and supervise accounts payable and/or payroll procedures."
      6.      W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 defines Inventory Supervisor as: "personnel who are employed to supervise or maintain operations in the receipt, storage, inventory and issuance of materials and supplies."
      7.      The Kanawha County Job Description for a Buyer states the employee is "[r]esponsibile for obtaining the materials and services needed to operate the school system." The duties of this position are listed as follows:


            3.      Conducts public bid openings.







      8.      The Kanawha County Job Description for Accountant II identifies the duties as:












      9.      The Kanawha County Job Description for an Accountant III states the duties of this employee as:

      10.      Within DOE, the individual, section, department, or committee which wants to obtain goods or services, is responsible for writing the specifications, working with the vendors, assessing the bids, selecting the vendor, and filling out many of the required forms.      11.      Grievants are not allowed final approval on any purchase.
      12.      Grievants frequently assist the individuals and committees who want to purchase goods and services. Grievants help these individuals to write clearer specifications; give them names of vendors from the approved vendor files; explain the process and forms; pass out catalogs; inform individuals about the need to purchase some items through the state-wide contract; and serve on various committees that purchase office equipment.
      13.      Once a purchase order has been completed by an individual or committee, Grievants examine the forms for accuracy and clarity; check to see if the requesting group has sufficient funds in the identified account; enter information into various computer data bases; and give the form to one of their supervisors for a signature. During this process, the computer assigns the purchase order a "C" number which is a type of purchase tracking device. If the desired vendor is not on the approved list, Grievants inform the requester how to get the name on the list. If the vendor is a "sole source", Grievants inform the requester what type of letter they must obtain to have this purchase approved.       14.      For purchases less than $1,000.00, Grievants use their state Purchasing Cards or P-Cards to obtain the materials using the budget number supplied by the requester. These purchases must be approved by their supervisor.
      15.      For purchases greater than $1,000.00 but less than $5,000.00, Grievants direct the requester to obtain three oral bids and submit them with the other material. The requester is required to take the low bid if it meets the specifications.      16.      For purchases greater than $5,000.00 but less than $10,000.00, Grievants direct the requester to obtain three written bids and submit them with the other material. Again, the requester is required to take the low bid if it meets the specifications.
      17.      Purchases greater than $10,000.00 must be handled by the State Division of Purchasing. The State Buyers, with assistance from the requesters and Grievants, write the specifications and expected cost, publish bid requests, open bids, and select the vendor.
      18.      Grievants received no loss of compensation as the result of their reclassification.
Discussion

      Because a misclassification grievance is non-disciplinary in nature, the burden of proof is upon Grievants to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their duties more closely match those of another W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 class title than that under which their positions are 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); Perdue v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-27-280 (Mar. 29, 1993); Hatfield v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-077 (Apr. 15, 1991). See Procedural Rules of the W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd. 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996); Toney v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-22-046 (Apr. 23, 1999); Bowen v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-20-039 (Mar. 30, 1999); Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-174 (Apr. 30, 1997); W. Va. Code § 18-29-6.       Simply being required to undertake some responsibilities normally associated with a higher classification, even regularly, does not render a grievant misclassified, per se. Hamilton v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-077 (Apr. 15, 1991). Additionally, when statutory definitions are generally worded, as here, they must be broadly applied. See Midkiff v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-267 (Mar. 19, 1996), aff'd Kanawha County Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 96-AA -56 (June 6, 1997). "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 Co. 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).
      The key factor to examine here is what is the best fit within the statutory definitions for Grievants' duties. The Kanawha County Job Descriptions are also helpful in comparing and contrasting Grievants' duties with those performed by Kanawha County Buyers and Accountants. As previously stated a Buyer is expected to perform the following duties frequently: 1) review and write specifications; 2) negotiate purchase bids; 3) recommend purchase agreements for materials and services that meet predetermined specifications at the lowest available costs.
      The testimony indicates Grievants assist with reviewing and writing specifications when asked. This assistance is not a frequent occurrence. Grievants frequently review specifications as to the proper forms, data, and identification numbers. Grievants occasionally negotiate purchase bids. This duty falls typically to the secretary or committee who writes the specifications, but at times Grievants will recommend a vendor,especially when the goods relate to office supplies. Grievants do not recommend purchase agreements for materials and services that meet predetermined specifications at the lowest available costs. They do sometimes remind people of where certain goods may be purchased at a lower price or serve on committees that are selecting expensive office equipment. They do not make the final selection.
       As for the Kanawha County Buyer Job Description:
      1.      Grievants review all requisitions to insure they meet the procedural requirements and contain the proper numbers and identification codes. They do not assess whether the most economical and efficient method of purchasing has been chosen. They do remind the requesters that the lowest bid must be taken if it meets the specifications; however, they do not determine if the bid meets the specifications.
      2.      Grievants do not write the specifications when an item is to be bid to ensure that only high quality low cost materials are obtained. They assist when asked.
      3.      Grievants do not conduct public bid openings or place notices about upcoming bid opportunities; this duty falls to the State Division of Purchasing.
      4.      Grievants do not evaluate bids and samples to make vendor selections. As previously stated, Grievants, at times, recommend additional vendors from the vendor list or give requesters the information necessary for getting a vendor on the list.
      5.      Grievants are not responsible for fully documenting instances when low bids do not meet specifications. This is the responsibility of the individual ordering the product or service. Grievants may assist this individual if asked.      6.      Grievants do not set up test situations to measure quality or functionality of existing, as well as new products. At times they serve on committees that would do this type of testing. They are not authorized to make the final selection.
      7.      Grievants do not interview salespersons to keep abreast of product changes and market trends, but they do talk with salespeople when they come around and pass on the samples they are given to other people within the office.
      8.      Grievants do not "effect bidding efficiency and provide commodity contracts for schools and offices by negotiating long term price agreements." DOE contracts are, by law, for one year.
      9.      Grievants sometimes provide price and product information or direct requesters to a less costly vendor, but they do not negotiate purchases on their behalf.
      10.      Grievant Tignor is responsible for cataloging and tracking inventory that costs over a certain amount within in the office. He does not assume the responsibility for ordering supplies except for the supplies for the office in which he works. These orders must be approved by his supervisors.
      When the statutory definitions of W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8 are examined, Accountant II, "personnel employed to maintain accounting records and to be responsible for the accounting process associated with billing, budgets, purchasing and related operations" seems to be the best fit of the statutory classifications for Grievants' duties. This is especially true since Accountant III says "personnel who are employed in the county board office to manage and supervise accounts payable and/or payroll procedures." However, DOE did not place Grievants in the lower Accountant II classification. Nonetheless, thedefinitions of Accountant fit Grievants' duties more closely than those of Buyer. Grievants spend a great deal of their time reviewing their P-card purchases; checking invoices, reconciling purchases with orders, and entering data into the computer. Additionally, Grievants call vendors to check on these purchases to see if the goods that have been billed are received. Further, some of the duties of Grievant Tignor as they relate to inventory are ones closely associated to accounting.
      The Kanawha County Job Description for Accountant II also closely follows the majority of Grievants' duties. From somewhat confusing testimony, it appears one of the reasons Grievants were placed at the Accountant III level was to maintain pay and status parity among workers with similar seniority, duties, and responsibilities. Thus, although the Accountant II classification appears to be a better fit, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge will not substitute her judgement on that point, and the Accountant III classification will be allowed.
      One point is perplexing. Grievants said their duties had nothing to do with accounting. Other witnesses disagreed; especially the testimony of their second level Supervisor Mr. McKown. He viewed the majority of their duties as accounting-like. The dictionary defines accounts as "a precise list or enumeration of monetary transactions" and accounting as "bookkeeping methods involved in making a financial record of business transactions." American Heritage Dictionary 72 (2d ed. 19991). Grievants perform accounting-type duties as they relate to the purchases of DOE. They check to see if goods are received, if the numbers match, and reconcile all these transactions. These are the duties are of an accounting or auditing nature, not buying. This holding is supportedby the Kanawha County Accountant II Job Description. Additionally, some of Grievants' accounting-type duties are similar to these duties perform by Accountant II's within other school systems. See Ellison v. Fayette County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-10-250 (Sept. 18, 1997); Sammons v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-29-356 (Dec. 30, 1996); Higgins v. Randolph County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-42-1111 (Dec. 27, 1995).       W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18 required DOE to assign Grievants to the same salary scale as "comparable personnel". That is what DOE has done. It is clear the "best fit" for Grievants is not as a Buyer. Neither that statutory definition nor that Kanawha County Job Description describes their duties. The statutory definitions and Job Descriptions of Accountant, while clearly not a perfect match, more closely corresponds with their duties. It must be remembered that being required to undertake some responsibilities or duties normally associated with a different or higher classification, even regularly, does not render a grievant misclassified. Hamilton, supra.
      The next issue to examine is whether Grievant Tignor should be multi-classified. "'Multiclassification' means personnel employed to perform tasks that involve the combination 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 his 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). It is noted that the duties of Inventory Supervisor are in a lower pay grade.       The grievance of White v. Randolph County Board of Education, Docket No. 94-42- 033 (August 15, 1994) is instructive on this issue. White noted, " the multi-classification of service employees as described in Code §18A-4-8 is sometimes necessary for the efficient operation of the schools." See Roberts v. Wyoming County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 55-86-322-4 (Apr. 3, 1987); Sizemore v. Wyoming County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 55-86-310-4 (Apr. 20, 1987). "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. The Grievance Board has provided guidance on these matters." White, supra. "While a worker may be required to perform occasional 'overlap' duties of another distinct class, if the assignments are specified in the worker'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. See Boyer v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-54-196 (Jan. 29, 1991). Conversely, when a worker regularly performs work in her own and another classification, multi- classification is required." White, supra. See Bailey v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-274-158 (Jan. 31, 1992). Grievant Tignor is performing some duties outside of his Accountant III classification. The correct action here is to make him multi- classified.
      The above-discussion will be supplemented by the following Conclusions of Law.
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. Perdue v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 92-27-280 (Mar. 29, 1993).
       2.      W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18(b) requires DOE to compensate its service personnel so that this compensation would be "at least equal to the salary paid to comparable personnel employed by the county board in the county in which their principal place of employment is located. The department of education shall establish a salary schedule that phases in the necessary salary increases before the first day of July, two thousand two."
      3.      This requirement of W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18(b) imposed a duty on DOE to assess the duties of their employees, place them within the statutory definition that is the "best fit", and pay the employees accordingly.
      4.      “In order to prevail in a misclassification grievance, an employee must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that [her] duties more closely match those of another classification than that under which [her] position is categorized.” Gregory v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-29-006 (June 19, 1995); Hatfield v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-29-077 (Apr. 15, 1991).
      5.      Grievants have failed to demonstrate they perform the duties of a Buyer as outlined in W. Va. Code § 18A-4-8.
      6.      Grievants have failed to establish their duties more closely match those of a Buyer than an Accountant.      7.      DOE has not violated W. Va. Code § 18A-4-18 in the reclassification of Grievants.
      8.      Grievant Tignor has establish that he should be multi-classified as an Accountant III/ Inventory Supervisor as many of the duties he performs do not fall within the definition of Accountant III.
      Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part. DOE is directed to multi-classify Grievant Tignor as an Accountant III/Inventory Supervisor. This multi-classification would not result in a change in pay grade, as the Inventory Supervisor is rated a D while Accountant III is rated an F. As to the other and major portion of their grievance, Grievants are correctly classified as Accountant III's.

      Any party may appeal this decision to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County or to the Circuit Court of the Kanawha 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.

                                     ___________________________________
                                                 JANIS I. REYNOLDS                                                 Administrative Law Judge

Dated: August 29, 2000


Footnote: 1
      Grievants were represented by Perry Bryant of the West Virginia Education Association, and DOE was represented by Attorney Katherine Dooley.
Footnote: 2
      Grievant Blair's working title is Accountant III-Lead.
Footnote: 3
      Because of the differences in the duties performed by the two Grievants, the Buyer duties of the Grievants will be discussed together, and the other duties of Grievant Tignor will be addressed separately. However, the totality of Grievant Tignor's duties must be examined in assessing and determining his appropriate classification.