v. Docket No.95-CORR-267
DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS
Grievants, Ethel M. Saunders and Ervie E. Mayne, employed by the Division of
Corrections (Corrections) as Correctional Officers II at the Pruntytown Correctional Center
(PCC), filed a level one grievance on or about May 1, 1995, in which they complained of
misclassification. Specifically, Grievants assert that they perform the same duties and
responsibilities as a co-worker who was upgraded from CO II to CO III during the
reclassification project. Following denials at all lower levels the grievance was advanced to
level four on June 21, 1995. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on September 20, 1995,
at which time the matter became mature for decision.
The West Virginia Division of Personnel (Personnel) classification specifications
relevant to this matter are reproduced as follows:
Nature of Work: Under direct supervision, performs full-performance, journey level
Correctional Officer work in enforcing rules, regulations and state law necessary for control
and management of offenders and the maintenance of public safety. Employee may be
assigned as a lead officer within a unit or shift or as an officer assigned to a post or a
position requiring special technical skills. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics: This is the first full-performance level worker within the
Correctional Officer class series. The employee may function as a field training officer, but
most officers are assigned to a specific unit to oversee and direct the activities of inmates.
Examples of Work
Conducts/assists with orientation or on-the-job training for beginning Correctional
Officers.
Reads and implements training materials; posts orders, administrative regulations; logs
entries and memorandums[sic].
Obtains information from previous shift regarding activities occurring on that shift.
Conducts/assists with offender intake/discharge procedures; observes, monitors and
supervises offenders to detect unusual or prohibited behavior and maintains custody and
control within the correctional facility.
Performs counts at regular, or other, intervals to ensure offender accountability;
transports offenders to and from correctional facilities; searches persons, personal property
and areas; instructs and supervises offenders in performing assigned tasks.
Maintains public safety and control of offenders by enforcing rules, regulations and
state law; reports violations.
Testifies at internal disciplinary hearings and in court.
Interacts with offenders in order to facilitate development or improvement of living and
social skills; reinforces positive behavior; listens and responds appropriately to offender
requests, problems and complaints.
Participates in staff, team and committee meetings.
Recognizes and responds to potential or actual emergencies such as, but not limited to
fires, physical altercations, disturbances, or escapes in a manner which is consistent with
policy, procedure and state law and ensures public safety.
Handles and operates security/communications equipment and/or firearms as directed
in a manner which is consistent with policy, procedure and state law and which ensures
public safety.
Inspects, inventories, maintains physical control of, and logs keys, tools, weapons and
related equipment; reports damaged or missing items or other irregularities.
Performs safety and sanitation inspections; supervises cleaning of institutional areas and
inmate hygiene activities.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of correctional security, treatment and support program operations.
Knowledge of rules, regulations and state law.
Knowledge of emergency procedures.
Ability to follow and issue written and oral direction within the chain of command.
Ability to interact positively with staff, inmates and the general public.
Ability to run, jump, climb stairs and physically restrain violent residents.
Ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Ability to use appropriate physical force to control offenders when necessary.
Ability to safely handle and use firearms, chemical agents and mechanical restraints and
to obtain certification in the use of this equipment.
Ability to conduct correct contraband searches.
Ability to perform accurate offender counts.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER III
Nature of Work: Under direct supervision, serves as a first-line supervisor of
Correctional Officers. The officer is responsible for enforcing or supervising the
enforcement of the rules, regulations and state law necessary for the control and
management of offenders and the maintenance of public safety. The officer supervises and
reviews the work of subordinates to ensure facility security or the functioning of a
specialized post or unit. Performs related work as required.
Distinguishing Characteristics: This is first-line supervisory work. Holds the assigned
rank of Corporal.
Examples of Work
Conducts, supervises the orientation and/or on-the-job training of subordinate officers.
Reads and implements training materials, post orders, administrative regulations, log
entries and/or memoranda.
Provides guidance and direction to subordinate officers. Monitor the performance of
subordinate officers, making recommendations for disciplinary action when necessary.
Counsels/prepares written evaluations of subordinates.
Obtains information from previous shift regarding activities occurring on that shift.
Conduct/assist with offender intake/discharge procedures.
Observes offenders to detect unusual or prohibited behavior and maintain custody and
control within the correctional facility. Performs or supervises offender counts. Performs
or supervises offender escort/transport security. Performs or supervises contraband searches.
Instructs and supervises offenders in performing assigned tasks.
Maintains public safety and control of offenders by supervising the enforcement of
rules, regulations and state law. Reports violations.
Testifies in internal disciplinary hearings and in court.
Interacts with offenders in order to facilitate development or improvement of living and
social skills; reinforces positive behavior; listens and responds appropriately to offender
requests, problems and complaints.
Recognizes and supervises the response to potential or actual emergencies, such as but
not limited to, fires, physical altercations, disturbances, or escapes in a manner which is
consistent with policy, procedure and state law and ensures public safety.
Handles and operates security/communications equipment and/or firearms as directed
in a manner which is consistent with policy, procedure and state law and ensures public
safely.
Conducts incident inquiries/investigations as assigned.
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of correctional security, treatment and support program operations. Knowledge of rules, regulations and state law.
Skill in locating and identifying contraband.
Ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Ability to supervise enforcement of rules, regulations and state law.
Ability to plan, organize and direct subordinate staff and offender activities and work
details.
Ability to resolve offender and subordinate staff problems and conflicts.
Ability to follow and issue written and oral direction within a formal chain of command.
Ability to interact positively with staff, inmates and the general public.
Ability to run, jump, climb stairs and physically restrain violent residents.
Ability to use appropriate physical force to control offenders when necessary.
Ability to safely handle and use firearms, chemical agents and mechanical restraints and
to obtain certification in the use of this equipment.
Ability to conduct correct contraband searches.
Ability to write routine reports and complete standard forms.
Ability to read and understand and apply training and directive materials.
Ability to complete tasks in a specialization such as Field Training Officer.
In order for Grievants to prevail upon a claim of misclassification, they must prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that their duties for the relevant period more closely
matched another cited Personnel classification specification than that under which they are
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
the classification specification is its most critical section. Atchison v. W.Va. Dept. 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 Grievants' current classification
constitutes the "best fit" for their 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, 609 (Aug. 31, 1990). Finally, Personnel's interpretation and explanation of the
classification specifications at is, if said language is determined to be ambiguous, should be
given great weight unless clearly erroneous. See W.Va. Dept. of Health v. Blankenship, 431
S.E. 2d 681, 687 (W.Va. 1993).
Grievant Saunders testified that she works all units at PCC and has been the officer in
charge of the gym and the officer in charge of Unit 24, the Mens' dorm. Apparently, both
of these assignments involve two officers. She states that she also is qualified to transport
inmates and to train new officers. On cross-examination Grievant stated that her primary
duty is to provide security and not the supervision of other correctional officers. Grievant
Mayne testified that he works on Unit 25 predominately and is usually assigned with
correctional counselors.
Captains James Bobela and James Reed testified at level four that Grievants have filled
in as shift commanders, assuming responsibility for the entire institution. Captain Bobela
further noted that Grievants had not been afforded the opportunity to perform certain other
duties, but opined that they did not lack in ability. He recalled that Grievant Saunders had
been discontinued from working as a shift commander after the reclassification was
implemented, and that neither Grievant had been so assigned since March 1995.
Grievants also submitted into evidence a series of charts documenting the assignments
and duties of eight sergeants, a corporal, and themselves, from 1991 through 1994. The
charts indicate that Grievants performed comparably with the other, higher classified,employees while working as shift commanders and/or officers in charge; however, the source
of this information was not identified. No information was provided relating to the co-
worker who allegedly performed the same duties as Grievants and was promoted to CO III.
Personnel argues that Grievants are properly classified as CO II because their duties
and responsibilities are those of a full- performance security officer. Lowell T. Basford,
Assistant Director of Personnel's Classification and Compensation Section, concluded that
CO III is the first level of supervision and that Grievants do not predominately function as
supervisory personnel. Mr. Basford acknowledged Grievants' work as officers in charge and
shift supervisors, but stated that such work on a fill-in or substitute basis does not qualify
the employee for a higher classification.
Upon review of the record in its entirety it must be concluded that Grievants have
failed to prove that they predominately function as first-line supervisors of other officers or
that they are comparatively situated to another employee who is classified as a CO III.
In addition to the foregoing narration it is appropriate to make the following formal
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Grievants are employed by the Division of Corrections as Correctional Officers II
at the Pruntytown Correctional Center.
2. Grievants primarily function as full-performance correctional officers enforcing the
rules and regulations necessary for control and management of offenders and maintaining
public safety. 3. Grievants have served as officers in charge of units and as shift supervisors during
the absence of their superiors. It appears that this practice has been discontinued since the
implementation of the reclassification project.
Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
DATE: January 31, 1996 _______________________________
SUE KELLER
SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE