Issue: Compliance, Multiple Grievances; Ruling Date, March 29, 2001; Ruling #2001-041; Agency: Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services; Outcome: Out of Compliance, Agency

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Employment Dispute Resolution

COMPLIANCE RULING OF DIRECTOR

In the matter of Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation And Substance Abuse Services
No. 2001-041
March 29, 2001

ISSUE:

May the agency administratively close the grievant's February 5, 2001 grievance as duplicative of his February 13, 2001 grievance?

RULING:

No. The grievance of February 5, 2001 is not duplicative. The parties are advised that within five days from the receipt of this ruling, the grievant must conclude his February 5, 2001 grievance or request the agency head to qualify it for hearing. However, because the two grievances share related facts, if the February 5 grievance is qualified for hearing by either the agency head, this Department, or a circuit court, this Department directs that the two grievances proceed to hearing together. This Department's rulings on matters of compliance are final and nonappealable. (See Va. Code § 2.1-116.03(5)).

EXPLANATION:

An employee's grievance must not duplicate another grievance challenging the same action or arising out of the same facts. If there is duplication, management may notify the employee that the grievance will be administratively closed due to noncompliance. Grievance Procedure Manual, § 2.4.

In this case, the February 5, 2001 grievance alleges that the agency misapplied policy by failing to either discipline the grievant or return him to work after ten workdays of suspension. The February 13, 2001 grievance challenges a February 7, 2001 Group III Written Notice and 30-day suspension and transfer, in part on the grounds that the discipline was untimely.

Granted, these two grievances share much of the same factual background. However, they challenge different management actions: the first grievance challenges a suspension, not on the merits but on policy grounds (and does not automatically qualify for hearing); and the second grievance challenges related disciplinary action under the Standards of Conduct (and does automatically qualify for hearing). Although the parties may wish to address these grievances together for efficiency reasons during the remainder of the management resolution steps and agency head qualification phase, the agency may not administratively close the grievant's February 5, 2001 policy claim regarding his suspension.

Neil A.G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

June M. Foy
Employment Relations Consultant