v. Docket No. 99-DOH-324
Grievant, Donald Miller, an employee of the Department of Transportation/Division
of Highways ("DOH"), filed his grievance over his classification on August 18, 1998. He
maintained he was improperly classified as Administrative Services Assistant III, and
should be classified as a Transportation Services Manager I.
(See footnote 1)
The relief sought is
"promotion" to the position with a ten percent pay increase.
(See footnote 2)
This grievance was denied
at Levels I, II, and III, and then appealed to Level IV.
(See footnote 3)
Respondent DOH did not present
evidence at Level III, as the agency had recommended Grievant's class specification bechanged, and this request was denied by the Division of Personnel ("DOP" or
"Personnel"). DOP presented evidence at Level III to support it decision. After several
continuances for good cause shown, the parties agreed to submit the case on the record
developed below.
(See footnote 4)
This case became mature for decision on January 30, 2000, the
deadline for the parties' proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
(See footnote 5)
Issues
The issues in this case are not the typical ones found in a misclassification
grievance. Grievant does not request or want reclassification to Transportation Services
Manager I, instead he wishes to be promoted or reallocated to the position.
Reclassification to Transportation Services Manager I would result in no pay increase as
Grievant's salary is well over the minimum starting salary of that position. Grievant argued
he performed the duties of the position, and his duties have been increased and changed
during the twenty-seven years he has held the position.
Respondent DOP argued Grievant was properly classified, and the duties Grievant
performed were of an administrative, support nature, and thus, were not covered or
included in the Transportation Services Manager I class specification. DOP maintained
Grievant did not manage a program or service organizational unit in the Department of
Transportation, but provided the administrative services necessary for his section, the
Traffic Engineering Division, to perform its required functions. After a thorough review of the record in its entirety, the undersigned Administrative
Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact.
(See footnote 6)
Findings of Fact
1. Grievant was classified as an Administrative Services Assistant III at Pay
Grade 13, in the Traffic Engineering Division.
(See footnote 7)
2. Grievant was in charge of the Administrative Section. He had served in that
capacity for approximately 27 years.
3. In 1984, he was reclassified from an Administrative Assistant to an
Administrative Services Assistant.
(See footnote 8)
4. The Traffic Engineering Division has approximately 65 to 70 employees.
5. Grievant's Position Description Form stated he was "responsible for the
personnel functions[,] processing payroll information, processing accounts payable,equipment management, office inventory and processing engineering/construction
authorizations" in the Traffic Engineering Division. Grt. Ex. No. 5, at Level III.
6. Grievant supervised three clerical people.
7. Grievant's duties included: 1) screening, interviewing, and recommending
applicants for vacancies; 2) processing Workers' Compensation claims; 3) arranging, and
at times conducting, training for employees; 4) reviewing all purchases to insure they
conform to proper procedures; 5) assisting with budget development and maintaining
established budgets; 6) supervising the accounting work of his supervisees; 7) preparing
financial reports and records; 8) processing all time sheets, expense accounts, and leave
records; 9) conducting inventory audits; and 10) informing Traffic Engineering Division
section heads of various personnel, travel, and purchasing policies and insuring these are
followed.
8. Grievant's position was one of administrative support for the Traffic
Engineering Division.
9. For many years, Grievant was in charge of the Traffic Engineering Division's
Administrative Section. During that time, his duties increased in number, but they
remained in the same administrative areas of personnel, accounting, and purchasing.
10. Grievant requested to be reallocated to an Administrative Services Manager
I sometime in the Winter of 1997 - 1998. This request was denied by DOP.
11. Grievant requested to be reallocated to a Transportation Services Manager
I sometime in the Summer 1998. This request was denied on June 12, 1998, by Mr. Lowell
Basford, the Assistant Director of the Classification and Compensation Division of DOP.DOP stated Grievant was correctly classified, and "d[id] not find that the duties and
responsibilities match the scope intended for this [Transportation Services Manager I]
class specification."
(See footnote 9)
12. The classification of Mr. John Halley is unclear from the record.
(See footnote 10)
Some of
his duties appear similar to Grievant's. DOP's Exh. No. 1, at Level III.
13. Ms. Linda Osborne was classified as a Transportation Services Manager I
on April 7, 1998. She is in charge of two separate units dealing with Department of Motor
Vehicle records, the Motor Vehicle Imaging System and the Teletype System. These are
functional units, not support units. DOP's Exh. No. 1, at Level III.
14. Grievant requested a job audit, but DOP did not think this audit was
necessary as Grievant had completed his Position Description Form in detail. No
additional data was needed to assess the duties of Grievant's position. Test. Mr. Basford,
Level III Hearing. 15. The class specification series for Administrative Services Assistants and
Administrative Services Managers were developed for employees who provide support
services to other agencies. Test. Mr. Basford, Level III Hearing.
16. The class specification series for Transportation Services Managers was
developed for employees who manage a program or service organizational unit in the
Department of Transportation. Test. Mr. Basford, Level III Hearing.
The class specifications of the positions at issue are reprinted below:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ASSISTANT III
Nature of Work: Under general direction, performs complex administrative and/or
supervisory work in providing support services such as fiscal, personnel, payroll or
procurement on a statewide basis or serves in a specialty role of a complex support
program with extensive federal oversight. Responsible for the development and
implementation of policies and procedures for the work unit; for the monitoring and
evaluation of the specialized functional area. Works within general statute and regulatory
parameters, but has considerable latitude to vary work methods, policy applications to
achieve desired results. The work includes supervision of subordinate professional,
technical or office support staff. The work is typically complex, varied and requires
considerable interaction with local, state and federal agencies and the general public.
Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics: Positions in this class are distinguished from the
Administrative Services Assistant II by the responsibility for unit operation and results
obtained. Positions in this class are typically responsible for a complex, statewide
administrative support program or function in a specialized role of considerable difficulty
and complexity involving sensitive and controversial issues and the lack of standard
procedures and/or precedent for programmatic guidance. Has considerable authority to
vary work methods and may be assigned responsibility to commit the agency to alternative
courses of action.
Examples of Work
Develops technical procedures for the effective implementation of the work of the
unit, to include forms, operating procedures, and proposed policies; confers
with unit management and other staff regarding revisions to budgetary,
purchasing, and other administrative services, policies, and procedures. Develops operating manuals necessary for the instruction and training of unit staff,
agency officials, and other state officials; conducts periodic training sessions
for new initiatives and procedures in the area of responsibility.
Analyzes the budget document and appropriate enabling legislation to determine
the need for revised operational procedures for the budgetary cycle.
Prepares or supervises the preparation of required fiscal and budgetary reports
in the area of responsibility.
Monitors the expenditures of state agencies and higher education systems to
ensure compliance with budgeted appropriations; confers with state officials
and budget specialists in the resolution of expenditure level problems;
advises on the transfer and reallocation of funds to resolve such problems;
briefs management on potential areas of appropriation level difficulties.
Prepares or assists in the appropriation of grant proposals and budgetary
recommendations for the agency; monitors the execution of appropriations
throughout the fiscal year.
Develops procedures, forms, and controls necessary for the effective operation of
the unit.
Within State Purchasing Rules and Regulations, examines purchasing requests for
conformity to specifications and budgeted amounts; may negotiate contracts
and agreements for the procurement of equipment, supplies and services.
Supervises other professional, technical and clerical employees in the unit.
. . .
Areas of Assignment
Accounting, Auditing
Budget and Budget Planning
Communication
Data Processing
General Supervisory
Insurance and Retirement
Personnel Administration
Printing
Public Transportation
Purchasing
Skilled and Unskilled Labor, Trades
Training
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER I
Nature of Work: Under administrative direction, manages a program or service
organizational unit in the Department of Transportation where the operation, policy, work
processes and regulatory requirements are typically predictable and stable. The scope
of responsibility includes planning and organizing the work procedures, directing the workprocedures, directing the work of employees, developing employees, evaluating unit
operations, developing budget needs, researching new work procedures, interpreting
statutes, regulations and policies. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics: Positions in this class have responsibility for a primary
unit in the Division of Motor Vehicles or a secondary program section in the Division of
Highways. The incumbent normally supervises technical and clerical positions.
Examples of Work
Plans, directs, oversees and coordinates the activities in the area of assignment.
Develops and recommends policies and procedures in the area of assignment.
Supervises the monitoring of unit activities to determine compliance with state and
federal regulations, policies and work standards.
Supervises and trains staff; may direct regional or other field staff.
Recommends the selection of staff to supervisors; conducts interviews for
prospective employees.
Prepares reports reflecting the operational status of the unit and/or agency
programs.
Compiles and/or analyzes data; develops program or procedures from this data.
May attend hearings providing facts or knowledge of the area of assignment.
. . .
Areas of Assignment
Claims Investigations
Construction
General Administration
Law Enforcement
Safety
Transportation
DISCUSSION
In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, he must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that his duties for the relevant period more closely match
another cited Personnel classification specification than the one to which he is currently
assigned.
See generally,
Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No. DNR-
88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989). Personnel specifications are to be read in "pyramid fashion,"
i.e.,
top to bottom, with the different sections to be considered as going from the moregeneral/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 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 his required duties.
Propst v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and
Human Resources/W. Va. Div. of Personnel, Docket No. 93-HHR-371 (Dec. 3, 1993);
Simmons v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Resources/Div. of Personnel, 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). Additionally, class specifications are descriptive only and are not meant
to be restrictive. Mention of one quality or requirement does not exclude others.
W. Va.
Admin. Rules §4.04(a). Even though a job description does not include all the actual tasks
performed by a grievant, it does not make that job classification invalid.
Id. at §4.04(d).
Finally, Personnel's interpretation and explanation of the classification specifications
should be given great weight unless clearly erroneous.
W. Va. Dep't of Health v.
Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993). Thus a grievant attempting to
establish he is misclassified has a difficult task due to the deference afforded DOP in
classification matters.
Personnel's rules define reclassification as "revision by the State Personnel Board
of a class or class series which results in redefinition of the nature of the work performedand a reassignment of positions based on the new definition and may include a change
in the title, pay grade, or minimum qualifications for the classes involved. W. Va. Admin.
Rule 3.00(77). Reallocation is defined as "[r]eassignment by the Director of Personnel of
a position from one classification to a different classification on the basis of a significant
change in the kind or difficulty of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position or to
correct a position misclassification."
Id. at (78). Promotion is defined as "[a] change in the
status of an employee from a position in one class to a vacant position in another class of
higher rank as measured by salary range and increased level of duties and/or
responsibilities."
Id. at (75).
The first issue to address is the question of whether Grievant should or could be
promoted. The answer to this question is simple and does not require an examination of
Grievant's duties. Grievant cannot be promoted into the position he already holds, and it
is also clear from the record that there was no vacant position at issue in this grievance.
The next issue to address is whether Grievant's position should be reallocated.
Although Grievant's duties have increased in number, this change alone does not indicate
a need for reallocation.
Kuntz v. Dep't of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 96-
HHR-301 (Mar. 26, 1997). To be reallocated there must be a "significant change in the
kind or difficulty of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position." W. Va. Admin.
Rule 3.00(78). There is also no need to reallocate a position when the additional duties
fall within the class specification.
Kuntz,
supra. In other words, if the increase in duties
are of the type contemplated or contained in the class specification, the position should
not be reallocated.
Id. The performing of a duty not previously done, but identified withinthe class specification also does not require reallocation.
Id. Grievant testified he had
been performing the same type of duties since he obtained the position.
A position can also be reallocated "to correct a position misclassification." A review
of the class specifications of the two positions and the testimony of Mr. Basford, indicate
Grievant is properly classified. Mr. Basford observed Grievant's duties were administrative
in nature, and were contained in the Administrative Services Assistant III class
specifications. A reading of the Administrative Services Assistant III class specification
indicates this position is expected to perform complex and difficult tasks in the support
areas of personnel, procurement, payroll, and budget. These are the type of tasks
Grievant performed.
Additionally, Mr. Basford noted the Transportation Services Manager class
specification series was developed for employees who manage a program or service
organizational unit, which Grievant did not do. Personnel's interpretation and explanation
of the class specifications should be given great weight unless clearly erroneous. In this
case it cannot be found that DOP is clearly wrong.
Blankenship,
supra.
The above-discussion will be supplemented by the following Conclusions of Law.
Conclusions of Law
1. In order for a grievant to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, he must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his duties for the relevant period more
closely match another cited Personnel classification specification than the one to which
he is assigned.
See,
Hayes v. W. Va. Dep't of Natural Resources, Docket No. DNR-88-038 (Mar. 28, 1989);
Crow v. W. Va. Dep't of Corrections, Docket No. 89-DOC-043
(Mar. 29, 1989).
2. Reclassification is defined as "revision by the State Personnel Board of a
class or class series which results in redefinition of the nature of the work performed and
a reassignment of positions based on the new definition and may include a change in the
title, pay grade, or minimum qualifications for the classes involved." W. Va. Admin. Rule
3.00(77).
3. Reallocation is defined as "[r]eassignment by the Director of Personnel of a
position from one classification to a different classification on the basis of a significant
change in the kind or difficulty of duties and responsibilities assigned to the position or to
correct a position misclassification."
Id. at (78).
4. Promotion is defined as "[a] change in the status of an employee from a
position in one class to a vacant position in another class of higher rank as measured by
salary range and increased level of duties and/or responsibilities."
Id. at (75).
5. When the salary of a reclassified employee is at or above the pay rate in the
new classification, the employee's salary remains the same. W. Va. Admin. Rule,
5.04(f)(2)(a)(2).
6. DOP's interpretation and explanation of classification specifications and
DOP's rules governing reclassification should be given great weight unless clearly wrong.
W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (1993).
7. An increase in the number of duties alone does not indicate a need for
reallocation when the additional duties are of the type contemplated or contained in theclass specification. The performing of a duty not previously done, but identified within the
class specification also does not require reallocation.
Kuntz v. Dep't of Health and Human
Resources, Docket No. 96-HHR-301 (Mar. 26, 1997).
8. The increase in Grievant's duties is of the type and nature contemplated in
Grievant's class specifications, thus, he was not misclassified.
9. The class specification of Administrative Services Assistant III was the "best
fit" for the duties Grievant performed.
10. Grievant could not be promoted to a Transportation Services Manager I, as
there was no vacant position in which to place him at the time he filed his grievance.
Accordingly, this grievance is
DENIED.
Any party 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 theBoard 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: April 7, 2000
Footnote: 1