This is a grievance by Steven Woodall (hereinafter "Grievant"), an employee of the Division of Highways, challenging his classification as an "Associate Engineering Technician - Materials." Grievant submits that his proper classification is "Engineering Technician - Materials." Grievant initiated the current grievance on March 25, 1993. Following denial of his grievance at Levels I and II, a Level III hearing was conducted on June 14, 1993. On September 15, 1993, Mr. Fred VanKirk, Division of Highways Commissioner, adopted the findings of a three-member board of Grievance Evaluators, denying the grievance on its merits. Grievant submitted a timely appeal of that decision to Level IV anda hearing was held in the Board's Charleston office on November 8, 1993.   (See footnote 1) 
      Grievant stated his grievance as follows:
      

Grievant Steven Woodall works as an Aggregate Laboratory Technician in the Materials Department and is classified a Level II Associate Engineering Technician. Grievant worked under the supervision of Aggregate Laboratory Coordinator Russell Bowen, who was classified a Level III Engineering Technician. Mr. Bowen transferred to District Seven Materials on July 2, 1990. Grievant was assigned Mr. Bowen's duties of Laboratory Coordinator plus maintain his own duties of Laboratory Technician. Mr. Bowen's duties were the same as other Coordinators in District 2 Materials, and also the same as coordinators in other districts. All of these employees are classified Level III Engineering Technicians. Grievant was discriminated against when his salary was not adjusted at the time of Mr. Bowen's transfer.

Relief: Grievant's relief is salary in Level III Engineering Technician pay range, and salary adjusted retroactive to July 2, 1990.

      At the Level IV hearing, the Respondent moved to dismiss the present grievance based upon the doctrine of res judicata. The undersigned denied Respondent's motion on an interlocutory basis at that time, primarily because the Grievant was not provided advance notice of the motion and was, therefore, not prepared to respond.   (See footnote 2)  Respondent renewed this motion in its post-hearing submission. Forreasons hereinafter set forth, the undersigned finds this motion dispositive of the present grievance.
      In a prior decision by this Board, styled Woodall v. West Virginia Department of Transportation/Division of Highways   (See footnote 3)  [hereinafter "Woodall I"], Administrative Law Judge Anderson rendered the following Conclusion of Law: "Grievant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his duties more closely match the specification for an Engineering Technician - Materials than the specification for his present classification of Associate Engineering Technician - Materials." Grievant does not purport that the instant grievance involves a different issue than Woodall I nor that his duties and responsibilities as an employee have been materially changed since the facts were heard in Woodall I. Instead, Grievant is seeking to relitigate the findings in Woodall I based upon contentions that a witness for the Respondent changed his testimony from Level III to Level IV in response to evidence produced by Grievant at Level III, and similar discrepancies in testimony. In particular, Grievant alleges that the Respondent "acted in bad faith and deceit by misrepresenting the job description of a Level III, Engineering Technician, Materials."   (See footnote 4) 
      This Board previously applied the doctrine of res judicata to repetitive grievances in Ramsey v. West Virginia Department ofHealth and Human Services.   (See footnote 5)  Res judicata is a well-established legal doctrine stating that a final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties to that proceeding and, as to those same parties, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. Black's Law Dictionary 678 (Abridged 5th Ed. 1983). In Ramsey, this Board applied the holding of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in Wolfe v. Forbes   (See footnote 6)  which recognized four conditions to meet in order to apply the doctrine of res judicata:
      (1) identity in the thing sued for;
      (2) identity of the cause of action;
      (3) identity of persons, and of parties to the action; and
      (4) identity of the quality in the persons for or against whom       the claim is made. Id.

      After carefully reviewing the decision in Woodall I, as well as the pleadings and evidence presented at the Level III and IV hearings in this matter, the undersigned finds that the present grievance is identical to the grievance filed by the Grievant inWoodall I. Grievant is complaining about the same issue and seeking the same relief. Moreover, this grievance involves the same parties, with the exception that the Division of Personnel in the West Virginia Department of Administration was not joined as a party to this grievance, as their input was not considered essential to resolution of the grievance. This distinction does not result in a sufficient difference to preclude application of res judicata.
      In addition, after reviewing the decision in Woodall I, it appears that Grievant's "new" evidence purporting to demonstrate how he performed the same duties as his predecessor, Mr. Bowen, would not be persuasive, given the earlier finding by Administrative Law Judge Anderson that Mr. Bowen was apparently misclassified at the time of his departure. Woodall I at 2-3. Thus, even if all of Grievant's allegations are accepted as fact, he would still not prevail upon the merits.
      In addition to the foregoing discussion, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in this matter.