Issue: Qualification; Work Conditions-Supervisory Conflict, Co-worker Conflict; Ruling Date: June 7, 2001; Ruling #2001-074 and 2001-075; Agency: Department of Corrections; Outcome: Not Qualified

QUALIFICATION RULING OF DIRECTOR

In the matter of the Virginia Department of Corrections

Ruling Nos. 2001-074 & No. 2001-075

June 7, 2001

The grievant requested rulings on whether her November 2, 2000 and January 24, 2001 grievances with the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) qualify for a hearing. Both of her ruling requests will be addressed together, as both grievances involve claims against her former supervisor. The grievant claims that her former supervisor has engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct toward her that has created a "hostile work environment". The grievant seeks as relief an environment free from hostility and harassment and the removal of alleged bogus claims from her record.¹ For the reasons set forth below, her grievances are not qualified for hearing.

The grievant has been employed by the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC) for over five years and is a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The grievant claims continuing harassment by her former supervisor, as regards to shift assignments, alleged favoritism, and receiving written instructions directed only to the night shift. The grievant alleges that as a result of her former supervisor’s actions, she and other LPNs had their holidays interrupted by sudden shift changes, and that when she brought such issues to management’s attention, bogus claims about her conduct and performance were made.

Although all complaints initiated in compliance with the grievance process may proceed through the three resolution steps set forth in the grievance statute, thereby allowing employees to bring their concerns to management’s attention, only certain issues qualify for a hearing. For example, while grievable through the management resolution steps, claims of supervisory harassment qualify for a hearing only if an employee presents sufficient evidence showing that the challenged actions are based on race, color, religion, political affiliation, age, disability, national origin, or sex.²

In this case, the grievant does not assert that the actions of her former supervisor were based on any of these factors. Rather, the facts cited in support of the grievant’s claim can best be summarized as describing significant conflict between the grievant and her former supervisor concerning the supervisor’s statements and actions. Such claims of supervisory conflict, while grievable through the management steps, are not among the issues identified by the General Assembly that may qualify for a hearing. Accordingly, these two grievances do not qualify for a hearing.

For information regarding the actions the grievant may take as a result of this ruling, please refer to the enclosed sheet. If the grievant wishes to appeal this determination to the circuit court, she must notify the human resources office, in writing, within five workdays of receipt of this ruling. If the court should qualify this grievance, within five workdays of receipt of the court’s decision, the agency will request the appointment of a hearing officer unless the grievant notifies the agency that she does not wish to proceed.

Finally, the grievance record reflects significant conflict between the grievant and her former supervisor. This Department notes that mediation may be a viable option to pursue. EDR’s mediation program is a voluntary and confidential process in which two neutral third parties, the mediators, help the parties in conflict, (whether just two parties or an entire work unit) to identify specific areas of conflict and work out possible solutions that are acceptable to each of the parties. Mediation has the potential to effect positive, long-term changes of great benefit to the parties involved.

Neil A. G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

Deborah M. Amatulli
Employment Relations Consultant