v. Docket No. 01-CORR-542
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS/
DENMAR CORRECTIONAL CENTER and
DIVISION of PERSONNEL,
Respondent.
This grievance was denied at all lower levels. Grievants appealed to Level IV on
October 22, 2001, and the parties agreed to submit this case on the record developed
below. This case became mature for decision on December 7, 2001, the date of the
receipt of the lower level record. Grievants submitted a list of points they wished to be
considered at Level IV, and Respondent elected not to submit proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law.
(See footnote 1)
After a detailed review of the record in its entirety, the undersigned Administrative
Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact.
1. Grievant Peacock is currently employed as a Correctional Officer III and has
been employed by CORR since June 1997. He was promoted to a Correctional Officer III
in March 2000, and he had worked approximately four years and two months for CORR
at the time his qualifications were reviewed for the Correctional Officer IV position.
2. Grievant Stemple is currently employed as a Correctional Officer II and has
been employed by CORR since May 1998. Prior to his employment with CORR, he was
employed as a police officer with the Marlinton Police Department. He was promoted to
a Correctional Officer II in January 2000, and he had worked approximately four years and
five months in law enforcement at the time his qualifications were reviewed for the
Correctional Officer IV position.
3. Grievants are high school graduates and have completed the Apprenticeship
Program, during their time with CORR. Neither Grievant has an Associate Degree.
4. On August 1, 2001, CORR posted vacancies for Correctional Officer IV's,
and identified the required minimum qualifications in the posting.
5. Grievants applied for the positions, and they were originally scheduled for
interviews.
6. On September 5, 2001, before the interviews were conducted, CORR
received notification from DOP that Grievants did not meet the minimum qualifications for
the positions, as they had "an insufficient amount of work experience." Grt. Ex. No. 6, at
Level III. 7. By letter dated September 10, 2001, CORR notified Grievants DOP had
reviewed their files, and they did not meet the experience requirement for promotion to
Correctional Officer IV. Resp. Ex. No. 1 & 1a, at Level III.
8. CORR's Policy 132.02 Section B on "Correctional Officer Promotion" states
"[a]ll applicants must meet the minimum qualifications established by the Division of
Personnel for any vacancy."
9. Attachment 1 to CORR Policy 132.02 identifies the number of years of
experience required for promotion to Correctional Officer IV as five with the completion of
the Apprenticeship Program, and nine without completion of this Program.
Grievants made two arguments. One, DOP was incorrect in its interpretation of the
minimum qualifications section of the Correctional Officer IV classification specification.
Two, DOP had in the past interpreted the minimum qualifications section differently for the
Correctional Officer III classification, and the current interpretation was inconsistent with
that prior interpretation. Grievants want to count their approximately four years of
experience twice: to meet both the training and experience requirement.
Respondent CORR asserts there were no violations of any rules and regulations,
and it followed, as required, DOP's decision that Grievants did not meet the minimum
qualifications for the positions as stated in the classification specification. DOP's response
to the inconsistency issue was it could not speak to what had happened before, and was
only addressing the issue raised by the grievance, the minimum qualifications for theCorrectional Officer IV classification.
(See footnote 2)
DOP and CORR maintained Grievants were not
minimally qualified for the positions, as they did not possess enough experience to meet
both the training and experience requirements. Years of experience could not be counted
twice.
The key issue in this grievance is how DOP's classification specifications should be
interpreted. Grievant disagrees with DOP's interpretation of its of the minimum
qualifications for the Correctional Officer IV classification. DOP and CORR aver the
requirements are clearly stated within the classification specification and CORR's Policy
132.02.
As this grievance does not involve a disciplinary matter, Grievants have the burden
of proving their grievance by a preponderance of the evidence. Procedural Rules of the
W. Va. Educ. & State Employees Grievance Bd. 156 C.S.R. 1 § 4.21 (2000); Howell v.
W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 89-DHS-72 (Nov. 29, 1990). See
W. Va. Code § 29-6A-6. See also Holly v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-23-
174 (Apr. 30, 1997); Hanshaw v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 33-88-130
(Aug. 19, 1988).
The minimum qualifications listed on the classification specification for Correctional
Officer IV are as follows:
Training: [ ONE] An Associate Degree in criminal justice or a related field from an accredited
college or university.
Substitution:
Full-time or equivalent part-time paid experience as a correctional officer may be
substituted for the required college training on a year-for-year basis.
AND
[ TWO] Graduation from a standard high school or the equivalent, plus successful
completion of a fundamental training course for correctional officer, police officer, military
police officer, probation/parole officer, or related area AND the Correctional Officer
Apprenticeship Program.
OR
Graduation from a standard high school or the equivalent plus successful
completion of a fundamental training course as described above AND four years of
full-time or equivalent part-time paid experience as a correctional officer, police officer,
military police officer, probation/parole officer, or in criminal justice or related field.
Substitution:
Successfully completed study from an accredited college or university in corrections,
criminal justice or related field with a minimum of two semester hours in corrections,
criminal justice or related field may substitute at the rate of thirty semester hours for each
year of experience.
Experience:
Three years of full-time or equivalent part-time paid experience as a correctional
officer, police officer, probation/parole officer or related experience.
Substitution:
Successfully completed study from an accredited college or university in corrections,
criminal justice or related field may substitute at the rate of thirty semester hours for each
year of experience.
As explained by Lynn Schillings, DOP Senior Personnel Specialist at Level III,
Grievants are covered under TWO, as they do not have an Associate Degree, but do
possess a high school diploma. Ms. Schillings presented DOP's interpretation of the
classification specification. To meet just the training requirement for a Correctional
Officer IV, Grievants must have completed the Apprenticeship program and possess twoadditional years of experience. Grievants meet the minimum qualifications for the training
requirement for the Correctional Officer IV classification.
To meet the just the experience requirement, Grievants must possess an
additional three years of experience, for a total of five years of experience to meet all
minimum qualifications: two for the training aspect and three more for the experience
aspect. This interpretation is supported by the classification specification and CORR Policy
132.02, as discussed in Finding of Fact 9.
It must be noted that when the plain language of a policy or regulation does not
compel a different result, deference must be extended to the agency in interpreting its own
rules and regulations. See Dyer v. Lincoln County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-22-494
(June 28, 1996). Where the language in a policy or regulation is either ambiguous or
susceptible to varying interpretations, this Grievance Board will give reasonable deference
to the agency's interpretation of its own policy. See Dyer, supra; Edwards v. W. Va.
Parkways Dev. and Tourism Auth., Docket No. 97-PEDTA- 420 (May 7, 1998). See
generally W. Va. Dep't of Health v. Blankenship, 189 W. Va. 342, 431 S.E.2d 681 (1993);
Princeton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 174 W. Va. 558, 328
S.E.2d 164 (1985); Jones v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 94-MBOT-978 (Feb. 29, 1996);
Foss v. Concord College, Docket No. 91-BOD-351 (Feb. 19, 1993). Thus, DOP's
interpretation of its classification specification is entitled to deference by this Grievance
Board, unless it is contrary to the plain meaning of the language, or is inherently
unreasonable. Dyer, supra. Since DOP's interpretation is not contrary to the plain
meaning of the language contained in the class specification, it is entitled to deference.
The above-discussion will be supplemented by the following Conclusions of Law.