BETTY J. WORKMAN,
Grievant,
v. Docket No. 98-T&R-519
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TAX & REVENUE,
and
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
On April 13, 1994, Betty J. Workman (Grievant) initiated this grievance pursuant to
W. Va. Code §§ 29-6A-1,
et seq., alleging that Respondent West Virginia Department of
Tax and Revenue (Tax) improperly reclassified her position as a Tax Audit Clerk. Grievant
contends she should have been reclassified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, and seeks to
recover back pay with interest from April 1, 1994. The grievance was denied at Level I on
April 14, 1994. A Level II decision denying the grievance was issued on May 3, 1994.
Grievant appealed to Level III on May 11, 1994, and a Level III evidentiary hearing was
conducted on June 23, 1994, before Dale W. Steager, Grievance Evaluator. A Level III
decision denying the grievance was issued by Grievance Evaluator Robert A. Hoffman onDecember 17, 1998.
(See footnote 1)
Grievant appealed to Level IV on December 23, 1998. On January
14, 1999, Respondent West Virginia Department of Administration, Division of Personnel
(DOP), was joined as an essential party in accordance with Section 4.13 of the Procedural
Rules of this Grievance Board, 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.13 (1996). Following a series of
continuances, each of which was granted for good cause shown, a Level IV hearing was
conducted in this Grievance Board's office in Charleston, West Virginia, on December 3,
1999.
(See footnote 2)
At the conclusion of that hearing, the parties agreed on a briefing schedule, and
this matter became mature for decision on January 26, 2000, following receipt of the
parties' written post-hearing arguments.
Based upon a preponderance of the credible evidence contained in the record
established at Levels III and IV, the following Findings of Fact pertinent to resolution of this
grievance have been determined.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grievant was employed by Respondent West Virginia Department of Tax and
Revenue (Tax) in the Business Registration Unit of its Internal Auditing Division.
2. Grievant was hired by Tax as an Audit Clerk Trainee in November 1986.
Prior to her employment by Tax, Grievant was employed as an accountant with a bakerycompany, and had her own tax service business, doing individual income and various
business tax returns for 21 years.
3. Grievant's initial duties at Tax involved dissolutions and withdrawals. In that
regard, Grievant was responsible for verifying that domestic businesses which notified the
West Virginia Secretary of State that they were dissolving their West Virginia business had
met their tax obligations according to existing tax records, and that foreign corporations
which similarly indicated to the Secretary of State that they were withdrawing from doing
business in West Virginia had met their tax obligations to the state. One of the taxes
Grievant verified was the corporate license or charter tax. These duties involving
dissolutions and withdrawals were transferred to another unit in September 1993.
4. By August1994, Grievant's primary duties in the Business Registration Unit
involved processing and auditing the corporate license tax. Harold Powell was then the
Supervisor of the Business Registration Unit, and served as Grievant's immediate
supervisor.
5. Dana Miller is employed by Tax as the Supervisor of the Corporate and
Franchise Tax Unit in the Internal Auditing Division. He has 20 years' experience with Tax.
He previously supervised the Business Registration Unit from 1984 to 1990.
6. The employees in the Corporate and Franchise Tax and Business
Registration Units work closely togther regarding corporate tax matters. Thus, Mr. Miller
is generally familiar with the duties performed by Grievant during the time frames pertinent
to this grievance. 7. In order to calculate the penalties and interest due for prior years of unpaid
corporate license tax, in those cases where a corporate entity was delinquent, Grievant
was required to perform mathematical calculations for each applicable year. Although this
activity often involved a series of mathematical calculations that varied according to the
year or years involved, the same formula was applied to each calculation, all necessary
data was provided, and only simple math skills were required to make the necessary
calculations.
8. When calculating the tax due, Grievant relied upon the data provided by the
corporation. Although she was required to check that the information provided by the
taxpayer was complete, she was not required to verify the information provided through
any additional sources, either in or out of Tax.
9. Employees in other divisions classified as Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, were able
to calculate tax liability using computer programs, as the calculations involved were
generally constant, facilitating programming of the mathematical portion of the process.
10. All Tax Audit Clerks in the Business Registration Unit are cross-trained to
understand the basic duties each employee performs in the unit. For example, on a daily
basis, each employee would be given a share of business license renewals to process, to
assist June Hyre, who was primarily responsible for those duties, but who usually had
more renewals to process than she could handle. In addition, each employee was
expected to field telephone calls or walk-in inquiries from taxpayers regarding taxes
administered by the Business Registration Unit. 11. The non-supervisory employees in the Business Registration Unit were
classified as Tax Audit Clerks. No employee in the Business Registration Unit has ever
been classified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior.
12. Grievant retired on June 30, 1997. During her tenure in the Business
Registration Unit, Grievant trained several employees who were subsequently promoted
to Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, positions in other units. There was no evidence that Grievant
ever applied for any of these positions.
(See footnote 3)
13. William K. Totten worked for Tax in the Business Registration Unit from
December 1, 1992, to August 30, 1994. Mr. Totten began as a Tax Audit Clerk Trainee
and was promoted to Tax Audit Clerk after obtaining the required one year of training and
experience.
14. While working in the Business Registration Unit, Mr. Totten's duties primarily
involved bingo and raffle activities, including applications by qualified non-profit
organizations for a license to conduct such activities, and auditing of the returns submitted
by these same organizations. Mr. Totten was initially trained by Linda Jarvis during his
first four months of employment. After Ms. Jarvis left due to a medical problem, Mr. Totten
relied on his supervisor, Mr. Powell, and Grievant, for guidance and training.
15. In September 1994, Mr. Totten was selected for a position in the Criminal
Investigation Unit where he was classified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior. During the first
five to six months of that assignment, Mr. Totten's duties involved trouble shootingaccounts, work which was not as complex as he had been performing as a Tax Audit
Clerk in the Business Registration Unit.
16. After approximately six months, all bingo and raffle matters were transferred
to the Criminal Investigations Unit where Mr. Totten performed essentially the same
functions as he had performed while employed in the Business Registration Unit. Mr.
Totten left the Criminal Investigations Division in June 1996 to pursue other career
opportunities in the computer field.
17. The Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, position held by Mr. Totten in the Criminal
Investigations Unit is not in the classified service.
18. Although employees in the Business Registration Unit were cross-trained to
perform each other's duties, Mr. Totten's duties involving bingo and raffles never became
a significant portion of Grievant's daily duties.
19. Lowell D. Basford is an Assistant Director of the West Virginia Division of
Personnel (DOP), and directly supervises DOP's Classification and Compensation
Division.
20. Mr. Basford supervised the statewide classification project that resulted in
Grievant's reclassification as a Tax Audit Clerk in February 1994.
21. Under the process employed by DOP in reclassifying Tax personnel, DOP
provided proposed classifications for all Tax employees to management, and obtained
concurrence with each classification determination, including Grievant's reclassification
as a Tax Audit Clerk. 22. Mr. Powell was afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding
reclassification of employees in the Business Registration Unit. He did not then
recommend that Grievant's position be reclassified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior.
23. Linda Bennett is employed by Tax as Assistant Director of the Internal
Auditing Division. The Business Registration Unit where Grievant worked falls under Ms.
Bennett's supervision. R Ex 4. During the statewide reclassification project in 1994, Ms.
Bennett was the primary liaison between Tax and DOP.
24. Ms. Bennett drafted the classification specifications for Tax Audit Clerk and
Tax Audit Clerk, Senior. Ms. Bennett employed the term complexity in the Tax Audit
Clerk, Senior classification specification with the intent of assigning that classification to
employees who were required to exercise more judgment and discretion in gray areas
based upon the complexity of the tax laws, whether state, federal, or a combination of state
and federal statutes and regulations are involved. For example, consumer sales taxes
involve a simple and straightforward mathematical calculation, but are considered more
complex because there are 56 separate exemptions which have to be applied to determine
if the tax is applicable. The legislative regulations covering consumer sales taxes issued
by Tax contain over 240 pages. R Ex 8.
25. Many employees who are classified as Tax Audit Clerks, Senior, are
expected to compare data provided by taxpayers with data from other sources or related
data provided by the same taxpayer on other occasions or in other situations, in order to
make a determination if the taxpayer is reporting consistently and accurately. Ms. Bennettconcluded that this process involves more discretion and exercise of judgment, making
these positions more complex than the work performed by Grievant.
26. Ms. Bennett met with Grievant to review the duties of her position in the
Business Registration Unit prior to recommending Grievant's reclassification to Tax Audit
Clerk. Ms. Bennett similarly discussed Grievant's duties, as well as the duties of other
employees in the Business Registration Unit, with Grievant's immediate supervisor, Mr.
Powell.
27. Prior to reclassification, there were three classifications, Tax Audit Clerk I,
Tax Audit Clerk II, and Tax Audit Clerk III, in the Tax Audit Clerk series. Grievant was
previously classified as a Tax Audit Clerk II. After the classifications were compressed to
two primary classifications, Tax Audit Clerk, and Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, as well as a
trainee position, Tax Audit Clerk Trainee, Grievant was reclassified by DOP as a Tax Audit
Clerk.
Classification Specifications at Issue
The relevant portions of the classification specifications for the Tax Audit Clerk and
Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, positions at issue in this case are reproduced herein as follows:
TAX AUDIT CLERK
Under general supervision, at the full-performance level,
examines tax returns and other documents for completeness, accuracy and
compliance with state tax laws. Work is performed in accordance with statutory
rules, regulations, policies, and procedures governing the lawful and timely
completion of tax returns. Requires strict confidentiality in regard to taxpayer
information. May act as lead worker and train new employees. Performs related
work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Employee at this level performs full-performance
audits of tax returns which require a working knowledge of state tax laws, filing
requirements, deadlines and billing procedures. Performs audits not involving
complex issues requiring as high of a degree of theoretical or as in-depth tax
knowledge. Audit sources and steps are limited in comparison to the Tax Audit
Clerk Senior level.
Examples of Work
Reviews records/computer systems to determine if taxpayer is current in filing and
payment of taxes.
Verifies mathematical calculations used in the computation of taxes.
Reviews returns and schedules to ascertain that information required by statute is
complete and may determine which taxes that taxpayer is liable for based
upon information included on return.
Verifies that applicants qualify for special licenses and permits by reviewing
applications for accuracy, completeness, and compliance to the requirements
as set forth in the statutes.
Reviews tax payments received for accuracy, records the payment and forwards
to the Cashier's office when the account examination is complete.
Drafts correspondence on a variety of tax issues to obtain additional information
from or relay information to the taxpayer.
Assists taxpayers in completing tax returns and determining
proper reporting classification in accordance with tax laws.
May assist in the drafting of forms and other publications.
R Ex 2.
TAX AUDIT CLERK, SENIOR
Nature of Work: Under limited supervision, at the advanced level, examines
complex tax returns and other documents for completeness, accuracy and
compliance with state tax laws and/or any related federal tax laws. Work is
performed in accordance with statutory rules, regulations, policies, and procedures
governing the lawful and timely completion of tax returns. Requires strict
confidentiality in regard to taxpayer information. May act as lead worker and train
new employees. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics: Employee at this level performs advanced audits
of more complex tax returns which require an in-depth knowledge of state tax laws,
regulations, filing requirements, deadlines and billing procedures and a working
knowledge of any related federal tax laws, filing requirements and deadlines.
Requires a greater latitude of independent judgement and knowledge of theoretical
principles in determining taxable status based upon complex issues and criteria asprescribed by state or federal laws. Requires the use of multiple sources and steps
to perform the audit functions.
Examples of Work
Utilizes state or federal tax laws to determine taxability of income, services or
products in accordance with the applicable rates and qualified tax
exemptions.
Utilizes federal return and/or federal audit information to complete and compare
appropriate state return data; utilizes computer audit databases to research
discrepancies in tax returns filed.
May determine taxability and allowable credits based upon federal and/or state tax
laws.
Compares information from tax returns with other sources to determine accuracy
and validity of reported information such as credits, invoices, inventories,
tonnage, etc.
Answers taxpayer inquiries requiring considerable knowledge of many tax laws in
order to verify liabilities, resolve complex issues, and effectively
communicate with taxpayers, accountants, attorneys, and other parties with
regard to various tax returns and the criteria used in assessing liabilities.
Utilizes additional information provided by taxpayers and other sources to develop
or reconstruct tax information and performs complex calculations to
determine correct tax due.
Works closely with Programming staff in developing and testing computerized audit
and update programs.
Coordinates the reporting of tax data on magnetic media by working with
Programming staff, tax practitioners, and taxpayers and maintains
associated database files.
Drafts correspondence on complex and sensitive tax issues to obtain additional
information from or to relay information to taxpayers.
Compiles, verifies and prepares reports and data for distribution of funds collected
to other agencies, counties and municipalities in compliance with state and
federal laws.
Establishes tax liabilities based upon audit findings and prepares taxpayer files for
legal action on delinquent taxes by computing liability, interest and additions
to tax due and by verifying the validity and accuracy of returns against data
from other sources.
May assist with or conduct internal or external training sessions.
Assists taxpayers in completing complex tax returns and determining proper
reporting classifications in accordance with tax laws.
Assists in the development of tax forms, instructions, and other publications.
G Ex A (emphasis in original).
DISCUSSION
As this grievance does not involve a disciplinary matter, Grievant has the burden
of proving her grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules of the
W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd., 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996);
Payne v.
W. Va. Dep't of Energy, Docket No. ENGY-88-015 (Nov. 2, 1988).
See W. Va. Code § 29-
6A-6. More particularly, 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 matched another cited Personnel classification specification than that under
which she is currently assigned.
See generally,
Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural
Resources, Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). Personnel 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 Work" section of a classification specification is generally its most critical
section.
Atchison v. W. Va. Div. of Health, Docket No. 90-H-444 (Apr. 22, 1991).
See
generally,
Dollison v. W. Va. Dep't of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov.
3, 1989). The key to the analysis is to ascertain whether Grievant's current classification
constitutes the "best fit" for her required duties.
Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health &
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). Finally, DOP's interpretation and explanation
of the classification specifications at issue should be given great weight unless clearlyerroneous.
W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681
(1993).
Grievant argues that the fact that Kevin Totten and Phyllis Vickers
(See footnote 4)
obtained
positions as Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, which they perceived as no more complex than the
duties they had been performing as Tax Audit Clerks in the Business Registration Unit,
demonstrates that Grievant should also be classified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior. With
regard to both of these employees, neither of them ever performed the same duties as
Grievant. Therefore, their testimony does not provide a relevant basis for comparison with
Grievant's position. Moreover, no position description was introduced listing the duties
these employees were assigned by Tax at the time they were reclassified to Tax Audit
Clerk, Senior. Such a document would provide a more accurate comparison with the
duties Grievant performed as a Tax Audit Clerk. In addition, Mr. Totten's Tax Audit Clerk,
Senior position was not in the classified service, and Grievant failed to establish that
classified exempt positions are treated in the same manner as positions in the classified
civil service.
See W. Va. Div. of Personnel Administrative Rule, 143 C.S.R. 1 § 14.01
(1993). Grievant further alleged that she should be classified as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior,
because her immediate supervisor, Harold Powell, only provided limited supervision over
her daily performance. DOP's Assistant Director for Classification and Compensation,
Lowell Basford, explained that Grievant's lack of direct supervision by Mr. Powell did not
equate to working under limited supervision within the meaning of the classification
specification for Tax Audit Clerk, Senior. According to Mr. Basford, Grievant's duties were
sufficiently structured and routine, and the information needed to perform her assigned
tasks was readily available, placing her in a situation where she performed her work under
the general supervision of the established process for determining corporate license tax
liability, rather than requiring frequent oversight by an individual supervisor. Grievant did
not establish that this explanation was inherently flawed, or contrary to the normal meaning
of the terms limited and general supervision in an employment context.
See Watts v.
W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 195 W. Va. 430, 465 S.E.2d 887 (1995).
Linda Bennett, Assistant Director of Tax's Internal Auditing Division, was generally
familiar with the duties performed by Grievant, as well as the duties performed by other
Tax employees assigned the Tax Audit Clerk, Senior classification. She credibly testified
that personnel employed in the higher classification were required to exercise more
discretion and judgment in determining tax liability.
(See footnote 5)
From her perspective as a senior
manager in Tax, complexity is not determined solely by the number of steps involved indetermining tax liability, or whether calculations required to determine the amount of such
liability could be made using a computer program rather than a calculator. Likewise, the
fact that Grievant was required to be knowledgeable regarding the various taxes
administered in the Business Registration Unit did not make her duties inherently more
complex, given that each tax administered in that unit involves straightforward application
of rules, with few gray areas to be interpreted.
Dana Miller, a supervisor with over 20 years' experience in Tax, currently
supervises the Corporate and Franchise Tax Unit. He previously supervised the Business
Registration Unit for approximately six years. He also testified that employees presently
or previously under his supervision holding the classification of Tax Audit Clerk, Senior,
generally processed more complex tax returns, and were required to make more
comparisons to verify the credibility of the taxpayer's return. From Mr. Miller's perspective,
Grievant's duties relating to auditing corporate license tax returns were more clerical in
nature than the duties performed by other Tax employees holding the Tax Audit Clerk,
Senior classification.
Ms. Bennett and Mr. Miller have significant expertise in matters involving tax
administration. Mr. Basford has similar proficiency in classification matters, due to his
considerable experience in supervising the classification process for state employees for
a number of years. The determinations of Ms. Bennett, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Basford in
regard to those matters within their respective areas of responsibility and expertise are
entitled to substantial weight.
See Blankenship,
supra;
Princeton Community Hosp. v.
State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 174 W. Va. 558, 328 S.E.2d 164 (1985);
SecurityNat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166 W. Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613
(1981),
appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1131 (1982);
Sword v. Bureau of Employment
Programs, Docket No. 97-BEP-434 (Mar. 19, 1998);
Travis v. W. Va. Dep't of Health &
Human Resources, Docket No. 96-HHR-518 (Jan. 12, 1998).
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' holding in
Blankenship,
supra,
presents employees challenging their classification with a substantial obstacle to
overcome in attempting to establish that they have been misclassified. Although
reasonable people could differ over the degree of complexity involved in the various
positions discussed in this grievance, Grievant's evidence falls well short of establishing
that DOP's interpretation of the classification specifications for Tax Audit Clerk, and Tax
Audit Clerk, Senior, as applied to Grievant, was clearly wrong. Although Grievant
performed some duties included in the Tax Audit Clerk, Senior classification specification,
those duties did not predominate Grievant's normal working day. Performance of duties
in a higher classification, where such work is not predominant, does not render an
employee misclassified.
See Ashley v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources,
Docket No. 94-HHR-070 (June 2, 1995);
Dooley v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human
Resources, Docket No. 90-H-498 (Mar. 19, 1991).
Notwithstanding Grievant's performance of her assigned duties in a highly
competent and proficient manner, and her superior knowledge, second only to her
supervisor, regarding the policies and procedures to be followed in regard to the various
taxes administered by the Business Registration Unit, such factors are not controlling in
determining her proper classification, because positions, not persons, are classified byDOP.
See Dala v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-059
(Mar. 29, 1995); W. Va. Div. of Personnel Administrative Rule, 143 C.S.R. 1 §§ 4.01,
et
seq. (1993).
Consistent with the foregoing discussion, the following Conclusions of Law are
made in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. In a grievance which does not involve a disciplinary matter, the grievant has
the burden of proving her grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural
Rules of the W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd. 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.19 (1996);
Payne v. W. Va. Dep't of Energy, Docket No. ENGY-88-015 (Nov. 2, 1988).
See W. Va.
Code § 29-6A-6.
2. Although Grievant performed some duties that were outside her assigned
classification as a Tax Audit Clerk, that did not render her misclassified.
See Ashley v.
W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 94-HHR-070 (June 2, 1995);
Dooley v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 90-H-498 (Mar. 19,
1991).
3. DOP's interpretations of the classification specifications for the positions of
Tax Audit Clerk and Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, as they apply to the duties performed by
Grievant, are not clearly erroneous, and therefore, should be accorded great weight.
W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681 (1993). 4. Grievant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her
predominant job duties best fit within the classification specification for Tax Audit Clerk,
Senior.
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.
LEWIS G. BREWER
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Dated: February 25, 2000
Footnote: 1 Neither party offered an explanation for the inordinate delay between the Level III
hearing and decision.
Footnote: 2 Grievant was represented by counsel, John G. Hackney, Jr., Respondent Tax and
Revenue was represented by Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey G. Blades, and
Respondent Division of Personnel was represented by counsel, Stephanie Schulz.
Footnote: 3 In any event, Grievant's failure to obtain a promotion to Tax Audit Clerk, Senior,
through competition for a posted vacancy is beyond the scope of this grievance.
Footnote: 4 Ms. Vickers did not testify at either Level III or Level IV. Her testimony at Level IV
was presented via affidavit where her claims that the duties of the Tax Audit Clerk position
she held in the Business Registration Unit were just as complex as the duties she
currently performs as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, in the Sales Tax Unit, were not subject to
cross examination. Ms. Vickers' affidavit indicates that she was classified as a Tax Audit
Clerk II after transferring to the Sales Tax Unit, but does not indicate her classification
while in the Business Registration Unit. Moreover, her most recent experience in the
Business Registration Unit was in 1988, providing a tenuous basis for comparison with the
duties Grievant performed in 1994 through 1997.
See G Ex I.
Footnote: 5 This testimony was corroborated by Lisa Kedward, Supervisor of the Sales Tax
Unit, who testified that the sales and use tax involved a number of exemptions which
required interpretation and discretion. See R Ex 8. Ms. Kedward credibly explained how
Ms. Vickers' duties as a Tax Audit Clerk, Senior, in the Sales Tax Unit were more complex
than Grievant's duties.