Susan Kincaid (Grievant) is employed by the West Virginia Division of Corrections
(CORR), as a Business Manager at the Anthony Correctional Center (ACC). She filed this
action on October 8, 1999, alleging she should be classified as an Administrative Services
Manager I. This grievance was denied at Levels I and II, by Deputy Warden Adrian F.
Hoke, on November 8, 1999. A Level III hearing was held on November 29, 1999. On
December 2, 1999, this grievance was denied at Level III by Commissioner Paul Kirby.
A Level IV hearing was held on March 1, 2000, before the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge, at the Grievance Board's Beckley office. Grievant represented
herself, CORR was represented by its Director of Human Resources Hilda Williams, and
the West Virginia Division of Personnel (DOP) was represented by Assistant Director for
Compensation and Classification Lowell Basford. The parties were given until May 10,
2000, to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Grievant did so, and this
grievance became mature for decision on that date.
The following Findings of Fact pertinent to resolution of this matter have beendetermined based upon a preponderance of the credible evidence of record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Grievant is employed as Business Manager of ACC, and has worked at ACC
for 29 years.
2. In November, 1998, ACC Warden Scott Paterson appointed Grievant to his
administrative staff, which consists of the Warden, Deputy Warden, Associate Warden of
Programs, Associate Warden of Operations, and the Chief of Security/Major.
3. Grievant sometimes acts as the Warden's designee in his absence,
occasionally orders offenders transferred from ACC to prison, and acts in rotation as
ACC's Administrative Duty Officer. She is sometimes on call when off-duty, has exposure
to pepper spray and firearms, and has increased accountability as an official of a
correctional facility.
4. Grievant's counterpart at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex (Mount
Olive) is classified as an Administrative Services Manager.
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.
A preponderance of the evidence is defined as evidence which is of greater weight or
more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence
which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1991);
Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human
Resources, Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993). Where the evidence equally
supports both sides, a party has not met its burden of proof.
Id.
Grievant alleges that she should be classified as an Administrative Services
Manager I, arguing that she has greater responsibilities at ACC than are described in the
classification specification for Business Manager, and that her counterpart at Mount Olive
is classified as an Administrative Services Manager I. CORR and DOP respond that she
is correctly classified as a Business Manager.
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 Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No.
NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). DOP's classification specifications generally contain five
sections: 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). Therefore, the "Nature of the
Work" section of a classification specification is its most critical section.
See 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 the grievant's current classificationconstitutes the "best fit" for her required duties.
Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't 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, DOP's interpretation and
explanation of the classification specifications at issue should be given great weight unless
clearly wrong.
See W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d
681, 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 Business Manager and
Administrative Services Manager I are provided below.
BUSINESS MANAGER
Under general supervision, performs full-performance
professional work planning, organizing, and directing the
operation of a business office in a large state facility.
Responsible for budget, fiscal, staffing, purchasing, inventory,
and other business activities. Has latitude to vary methods and
procedures within parameters, to achieve desired results.
Typically supervises clerical staff. Performs related work as
required.
Examples of Work
Plans, organizes, schedules and directs office employees and
fiscal, personnel, accounting, payroll and purchasing
operations. Coordinates the business management activities
of the institution with other institutional programs. Prepares or
directs preparation of, implements and monitors budget and
supporting fiscal statements. Coordinates the planning,development and implementation of federal funding programs.
Directs the computation of institutional operating costs.
Coordinates the processing and maintenance of accounting
and office records. Prepares project proposals and
coordinates committees and study groups in the analysis of
programs. Monitors and prepares payrolls, personnel records
and transactions, and maintains inventory; requisitions
supplies and equipment as necessary. Maintains various
records, writes necessary reports and correspondence and
attends meetings, conferences and seminars. Collects,
analyzes and reviews financial data. Instructs employees in
proper work methods and procedures. May organize and direct
auxiliary functions such as food service, mail, laundry and
maintenance. May recommend revisions to and adoption of
general operating and management policies.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER I
Nature of Work
Under administrative direction, manages an organizational unit
providing administrative and support services (i.e., budgeting,
purchasing, personnel, business operations, etc.) in a division
where operations, policy, work processes, and regulatory
requirements of the unit are predictable and stable. Involves
the supervision of professional, technical, and clerical
employees. The scope of responsibility includes planning the
operations and procedures; directing the work of employees;
developing employees; evaluating unit operation; developing
budget needs; researching new procedures and
improvements; interpreting statutes, regulations and policies.
Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
The Administrative Services Manager I is distinguished from
the Administrative Services Manager II by the responsibility to
manage a department-wide administrative support function or
a secondary mission, or unit of a primary statewide mission of
the department.
Lowell Basford, DOP's Assistant Director for Compensation and Classification,credibly testified that DOP considers Grievant to be correctly classified as a Business
Manager, because she directs the operation of a business office in a large state facility;
that her work is distinguished from that of an Administrative Services Manager I, and from
her counterpart's at Mount Olive, by the fact that she does not supervise a professional
level staff; that Mount Olive is a much larger institution than ACC; and that Grievant's
duties as Administrative Duty Officer at ACC are occasional and intermittent, and so are
not class controlling under
Broaddus.
Grievant plainly performs some duties outside of her job description; however,
employees can perform duties outside their job description and still be properly classified.
Dooley v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 90-H-498 (Mar. 19,
1991). Class specifications characterize the type of work to be performed, but do not
identify every task of the position. Class specifications are descriptive, not exhaustive, and
are to give a "flavor" of the difficulties, complexities, and duties of the position.
Hager v.
Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 95-HHR-241 (Sept. 29, 1995). Grievant has not
demonstrated that DOP's determination that she is a Business Manager is clearly wrong,
and that the Administrative Services Manager I classification specification is the best fit for
her duties.
However, the undersigned can understand why Grievant feels that she is something
more than a Business Manager. Although the classification specification for Administrative
Services Manager I does not best describe her work, the Business Manager classification
specification does little better, failing to address those parts of her job that spring from her
employment at a correctional facility, such as the responsibility of standing in for theWarden of ACC, her designation as part of ACC's administrative team, her being on call
when off-duty, her exposure to pepper spray and firearms, her increased accountability as
an official of a correctional facility, and her occasionally having to decide whether an
offender should be transferred from ACC to prison. These are weighty responsibilities.
It is unclear to the undersigned why no classification specification in DOP's classification
system better describes Grievant's job. However, given the substantial obstacle she must
overcome in attempting to establish that she is misclassified,
Blankenship,
supra, the
undersigned cannot conclude that she has satisfied her burden of proof.
The following Conclusions of Law support the Decision reached.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. 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.
2. In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, 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 Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources,
Docket No. NR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989).
3. DOP's interpretation and explanation of the classification specifications at
issue should be given great weight unless clearly wrong.
See W. Va. Dep't of Health v.Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993).
4. Grievant did not demonstrate that the Administrative Services Manager
classification specification was a better fit for her duties than Business Manager.
Accordingly, the 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.
ANDREW MAIER
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Dated May 26, 2000