RUFUS WARE
v. Docket No. 94-T&P-539
DIVISION OF TOURISM AND PARKS
and DIVISION OF PERSONNEL
D E C I S I O N
Grievant, Rufus Ware, grieves his classification as a Building
Maintenance Supervisor I ("BMS I") and states he should be
classified as a Building Maintenance Supervisor II ("BMS II") as he
is performing the duties of that classification. Grievant is a
BMS I in charge of the maintenance of all systems at Stonewall
Jackson State Park ("SJSP") including a three hundred and seventy-four slip marina. This grievance was waived at Levels I and II and
denied at Level III. The case was appealed to this Grievance Board
and a hearing was held on December 21, 1994. The case became
mature for decision on that date as the parties elected not to
submit further legal argument or proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Prior to the reclassification, Grievant was classified as a
BMS II. The class specification for this position and how it
relates to the current specifications is unknown. The pertinent
sections of the current classifications at issue are represented below:
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR I
Nature of Work
Under general supervision at the full-performance
level, directs the upkeep and management of buildings for
a small institution or state facility. The work is
reviewed through visual observation and written reports.
Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
This level of the class series is differentiated
from Building Maintenance Supervisor II by a lesser
managerial role and less authority to decide which
projects will take priority. Normally the incumbent is
responsible for upkeep of one building or works under the
supervision of a higher level Building Maintenance
Supervisor in a large building complex.
Examples of Work
Issues instructions to subordinates concerning
cleaning, repair and maintenance of mechanical and
electrical equipment, plumbing, and building
structure.
Plans renovations and decorating of office areas.
Maintains adequate safety protection for public and
building occupants by insuring the elimination of
fire and other safety hazards.
Participates in building maintenance functions using
carpentry, electrical, plumbing, roofing and other
maintenance skills.
Makes arrangements for additional lighting, heating,
and ventilating equipment as necessary.
Purchases maintenance and cleaning supplies from
local suppliers.
May supervise an automotive repair shop.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of the various phases of janitorial work,
janitorial supplies, and office furniture repair
and maintenance.
Knowledge of building maintenance.
Knowledge of a variety of maintenance trade skills.
Knowledge of safety regulations and precautionary
measures.
Ability to recognize maintenance needs and determine
appropriate action to meet these needs.
Ability to direct and instruct subordinates in
carrying out assignments.
Ability to maintain an adequate supply inventory.
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR II
Nature of Work
Under general supervision, at the full-performance
level, plans, organizes, and directs the upkeep and
management of buildings for a large institution.
Organizes and directs the work of skilled and semiskilled
trades-workers performing facilities maintenance and
repair. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics
This class is distinguished by a greater amount of
time spent in direct supervision of building maintenance
staff and by responsibility for maintenance of a larger
facility or institution.
Examples of Work
Organizes and directs the work of crews cleaning
buildings, repairing and maintaining mechanical and
electrical equipment, plumbing systems, and
building structure.
Ensures compliance with fire, electrical, OSHA, and
other applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
Develops, interprets, and revises blueprints for
specific maintenance projects.
Inspects building facilities continuously to ensure
proper maintenance.
Maintains supply inventory and requisitions supplies
and materials as needed.
Reviews, evaluates, and verifies employee performance
by inspecting completed assignments, and reviewing
work product and work performance.
Establishes schedules and priorities for maintenance,
repair, and construction projects.
Analyzes and prepares budgets, cost estimates,
material and labor estimates, equipment
requirements, and delivery schedules.
Maintains employee time records for payroll purposes;
writes activity reports as necessary.
Plans renovations and other special projects.
Establishes procedures for carrying out maintenance
responsibilities.
Determines the need and arranges for additional
lighting, heating, ventilation, and other needed
equipment.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of the standard methods, practices, tools,
and equipment used in building maintenance.
Knowledge of employee policies, procedures, and
supervisory techniques.
Knowledge of local, state, and federal building
safety codes.
Knowledge of a variety of maintenance trade skills.
Knowledge of the principles and techniques of
administrative management.
Ability to plan, organize, and direct the work of
skilled and semiskilled building maintenance
workers.
Ability to read, interpret, and revise blueprints and
building plans.
Ability to make material and labor estimates and
computations.
Ability to prepare plans, specifications, schedules,
and cost estimates.
Ability to keep accurate records such as inventory
and time sheets.
Ability to set goals, monitor progress, and adjust
resources to accomplish objectives.
Ability to communicate effectively orally and in
writing.
Grievant testified he performs the majority of the duties of
a BMS II. He states he has three employees he supervises directly
and four other employees he supervises indirectly. He spends
approximately five hours every week assigning tasks to subordinates
and also assesses and assigns other jobs as the need arises.
Grievant spends the majority of his day doing "hands-on"
maintenance and repairs himself because he is qualified to perform
the work and because of the limited number of employees at the
park.
Grievant also makes sure the park is in compliance with all
state and federal regulations, and he is particularly concerned
with safety aspects. He maintains the electric, sewage, and water
systems. He maintains the marina and the facilities associated
with it. Additionally, because the Grievant has multiple
qualifications and certifications he is occasionally asked by hissupervisor to assist maintenance people at other state parks and
facilities.
Mr. Lowell Basford, Assistant Director of Classification and
Compensation with the Division of Personnel ("DOP"), testified that
the decision to classify Grievant as a BMS I was made by assessing
the complexity of the position, identifying the number of people
supervised and the time spent in supervision, and comparing
Grievant's position and park setting in relation to other
maintenance personnel, especially those in the Building Maintenance
Supervisor ("BMS") series. He noted Grievant spent a minority of
his time supervising and the majority of his time engaged in
"hands-on" work. He also noted that SJSP had no cabins or lodging
facilities which are considered to increase the complexity of the
work required of the BMS. Mr. Basford noted the Grievant was in
charge of the marina, but this duty did not increase the level of
his position to a BMS II. Mr. Basford stated Grievant was properly
classified, especially in light of his predominant duties, time
spent in supervision, and number of employees supervised.
Mr. Caplinger, Deputy Chief of Parks, testified that he and
all the District Administrators worked very closely with DOP when
the BMS' were reclassified. All the parks and their number of
structures, facilities for lodging, and special needs were closely
examined by this group. He stated that Grievant was properly
classified, and that his classification was based on the facilities
at SJSP. Mr. Caplinger stated one of the primary considerations in
whether a BMS was classified as a I or a II was whether the parkhad cabins or a lodge. Because of the high degree of maintenance
required by these structures with the plumbing fixtures, water and
power lines, and other facilities, these positions were considered
more complex. SJSP has no facilities for lodging. Mr. Caplinger
stated that although the Grievant was in charge of the marina, this
duty did increase his classification to a BMS II.
Mr. Caplinger compared at length the parks which had BMS Is
with those which had BMS IIs. Some examples are listed below:
BMS IIs
1. Babcock State Park
55 structures, 5 employees, 26 cabins, 1 swimming
pool.
2. Hawks Nest
14 structures, 5 employees, 31 room lodge, 1
swimming pool, 1 tram.
3. Cass Railroad
83 structures (58 of which are residences), 17
employees (plus prison crew), plus depots and
shops.
1. Twin Falls
(See footnote 2)
41 structures, 21 room lodge, 12 cabins, 1 swimming
pool.
2. Bluestone State Park
49 structures, 18 employees (includes
housekeeping), 17 cabins, 1 marina (small).
3. Stonewall Jackson State Park
25 structures, 7 employees, 1 marina (374 slips).
Discussion
In order for 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 matched
another cited Personnel classification specification than the one
under which he is currently assigned. See generally, Hayes v.
W. Va. Dept. 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 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. Dept.
of Employment Security, Docket No. 89-ES-101 (Nov. 3, 1989). The
key to the analysis is to ascertain whether the Grievant's current
classification constitutes the "best fit" for his required duties.
Simmons v. W. Va. Dept. of HHR/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
Services, Docket Nos. 89-DHS-606, 607, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990). Additionally, class specifications are descriptive not restrictive.
The fact that a specific duty performed by employees is not listed
in the specification does not necessarily mean the person is
misclassified. W. Va. Div. of Personnel Admin. Rules, § 4.04(a)
&(b). Finally, Personnel's interpretation and explanation of the
classification specifications at issue should be given great weight
unless clearly erroneous. W. Va. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship,
431 S.E.2d 681, 687 (W. Va. 1993).
Under the forgoing legal analysis, the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals' holding in Blankenship presents employees
contesting their current classification with a substantial obstacle
to overcome in attempting to establish that they are currently
misclassified. A review of the two class specifications reveals
the Grievant is properly classified. The Nature of Work section of
the BMS I identifies this individual as directing the upkeep and
management of a small state facility such as SJSP. The "Examples
of Work" for BMS I's are consistent with the type of work Grievant
performs. Although he occasionally performs duties of a BMS II,
the predominant duties of a position are class controlling.
Broaddus, supra. The Grievant has not met his burden of proving
that the BMS II job description constitutes the "best fit" for his
required duties.
The following above discussion will be supplemented with the
Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.
Findings of Fact
1. Grievant supervises the maintenance of a small state
facility, SJSP. He spends the majority of his time in "hands-on"
work and only a small portion of his time in supervisory duties.
2. Grievant does perform some duties outside his class
specification such as reading blueprints, occasionally "trouble
shooting" at other parks, and prioritizing maintenance and repair.
Conclusion of Law
Grievant has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is misclassified or the position of BMS II is the
"best fit" for his normal duties.
Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
Any party or the West Virginia Division of Personnel may
appeal this decision to the "circuit court of the county in which
the grievance occurred," and such appeal must be filed within
thirty (30) days of receipt of this decision. W. Va. Code §29-6A-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. Any appealing party must
advise this office of the intent to appeal and provide the civil
action number so that the record can be prepared and transmitted to
the appropriate court.
___________________________
JANIS I. REYNOLDS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 31, 1995
Footnote: 1Greenbrier State Park also has a BMS I but the only testimony
about the park was that it had 12 cabins and a swimming pool.
Footnote: 2Mr. Caplinger stated that he thought this position was
misclassified, and the Department is requesting DOP to review this
classification.