Issue: Compliance/Work Conditions; Ruling Date: September 29, 2001; Ruling #2001-172; Agency: Department of Corrections; Outcome: Not qualified.

QUALIFICATION RULING OF DIRECTOR

In the matter of Department of Corrections/ No. 2001-172

September 26, 2001

The grievant has requested a ruling on whether his grievance with the Department of Corrections (DOC) qualifies for a hearing. The grievant claims that a supervisor treated him in a demeaning and unprofessional manner. As relief, the grievant wants DOC to discipline the supervisor and demote him to a nonsupervisory position. For the reasons discussed below, this grievance does not qualify for hearing.

The grievant is employed as a Corrections Officer. On May 31, 2001, he attended a regularly scheduled staff meeting with other officers and supervisors. During the conduct of the meeting, the chair in which he was sitting broke and the grievant fell to the floor injuring his back. While the grievant was still lying on the floor, a supervisor stood over him, making jeering comments and waving money in his face. As a result, management took disciplinary action against the supervisor, but did not demote him. The grievant contends that the supervisor’s behavior was demeaning and unprofessional, making him unfit to serve in a supervisory capacity.

By statute and under the grievance procedure, management is reserved the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of state government.¹ Inherent in management’s authority is the responsibility and discretion to discipline employees for unacceptable behavior and to determine the appropriate level of such disciplinary action. The grievant asserts that management should not only have disciplined the supervisor for actions that he personally deemed demeaning, inappropriate, and unprofessional, but also should have demoted him to a nonsupervisory level.

While the grievant may disagree with management’s determination that the supervisor’s behavior, though inappropriate, did not warrant demotion, management carefully reviewed his allegations before and during the grievance process. 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.² Claims relating to issues such as the methods, means and personnel by which work activities are carried on generally do not qualify for a hearing (including management’s determination whether to discipline another employee and to what extent), unless the grievant presents evidence raising a sufficient question as to whether discrimination, retaliation, or discipline may have improperly influenced management’s decision, or whether state policy may have been misapplied. In this case, the grievant has not offered evidence that would raise a question about any of the above mentioned concerns.

The enclosed sheet contains information regarding the actions the grievant may take as a result of this ruling. If the grievant wishes to appeal this determination to the circuit court, he must notify the Human Resources Office, in writing, within five workdays of receipt of this ruling. If the court should qualify the grievance, within five workdays of receipt of the court’s decision, the agency will request the appointment of a hearing officer unless the grievant should notify them that he does not want to proceed.

Finally, in the relief requested, the grievant asked that the supervisor be demoted. Even if the grievance were qualified by the circuit court, the scope of relief that the hearing officer may grant is limited, and does not include ordering the agency to take adverse action against another employee, including discipline, demotion, suspension, or termination.

Neil A.G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

June M. Foy
Senior Consultant