Issue: Compliance/30-Day Rule; Ruling Date September 21, 2001; Ruling #2001-163; Agency: Department of Motor Vehicles; Outcome: In compliance grievant.

In the matter of Department of Motor Vehicles

Ruling Number 2001-163

September 21, 2001

ISSUE:

Did the grievant initiate the grievance in a timely manner?

RULING:

Yes. The parties are advised that the grievant has five workdays from receipt of this ruling to advance this grievance to the next resolution step. This Department’s rulings on matters of compliance are final and nonappealable. (See Va. Code § 2.1-116.03(5)).

EXPLANATION:

The grievance procedure provides that an employee must initiate a written grievance within 30 calendar days of the date he knew or should have known of the event or action that is the basis of the grievance, unless there is just cause for the delay. (See Va. Code § 2.1–116.05(D); Grievance Procedure Manual § 2.4(1), page 6).

On July 30, 2001, the grievant filed a Grievance Form A indicating that the issue being grieved was the "end of eighteen-month training in Richmond" without his being returned to his former post outside of Richmond. The agency asserts that his grievance is untimely because it challenges his transfer, and that he "knew or should have known" of his February 1, 2001 transfer as early as his receipt of the agency’s January 28, 2000, letter informing him of the impending transfer to Richmond. The grievant asserts, however, that the action grieved occurred on July 28, 2001, the date that management failed to end what he claims had been only a temporary transfer of 18 months.

This Department has no written verification that the grievant’s February 1, 2001 transfer to Richmond was to have ended after 18 months. However, that is a question of fact going to the merits of the grievance itself more so than whether his claim was timely filed. The grievant’s allegation is that an improper management action occurred on July 28, 2001. Regardless of the ultimate merits of his claim (which could be addressed at the qualification stage), we must conclude that his claim was timely filed. This ruling only recognizes that the grievant may proceed with his claim, and in no way reflects the merits of his grievance.

Neil A.G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

Deborah M. Amatulli
Employment Relations Consultant