Issue: Qualification; Work Conditions/Supervisory Conflict; Ruling Date: September 26, 2001; Ruling #2001-173; Agency: Department of Corrections; Outcome: not qualified

In the matter of Department of Corrections/ No. 2001-173

September 26, 2001

The grievant has requested a ruling on whether her grievance with the Department of Corrections (DOC) qualifies for a hearing. The grievant claims that inadequate measures were taken to discipline her supervisors following a performance counseling meeting in which her supervisors acted inappropriately. For the reasons discussed below, this grievance does not qualify for a hearing.

The grievant is a correctional officer. She filed an incident report on June 1, 2001 after an inmate made sexual advances toward her and sent the inmate to her supervisors for discipline. The supervisors lectured the inmate and warned him not to speak to the grievant again. The grievant disagreed with the level of discipline given to the inmate and felt that he should have been "locked up" for his comments.

After the grievant complained about the inmate’s punishment, her supervisors called her into their office on June 4, 2001 for a performance counseling meeting. The grievant claims that in this meeting, the supervisors used profanity, detained her against her will and threatened her.¹ She filed a grievance on June 18, asking that an investigation be conducted and that her supervisors be demoted.

At the second resolution step of her grievance, an investigation was conducted by an ombudsman. Management determined from this investigation that the grievant was treated inappropriately in her performance counseling with her supervisors and that, as a result, all supervisors would be re-trained in performance counseling conduct. The grievant feels that this punishment is inadequate and seeks to have her supervisors further reprimanded for their conduct. Specifically, she asks that they be reduced in rank.

The employment dispute resolution statutes reserve to management the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of state government.² Thus, claims relating to issues such as methods, means, and personnel by which work activities are to be carried out do not qualify for a hearing, 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. ³Inherent in management’s exclusive right to manage the affairs of state government is its responsibility to administer discipline against employees as necessary. In this case, management investigated the grievant’s claim, determined that it was a valid claim, and did what it felt was right to remedy the situation. Furthermore, the grievant was reminded that disciplinary actions are confidential and that she would not be informed of any actions taken against her supervisors.

In this case, the grievant asserts that the discipline administered to her supervisors was inadequate. However, she does not provide any evidence that management’s handling of the situation was a result of discrimination, retaliation, or discipline against her or that state policy was misapplied. She merely asserts that she believes a more severe punishment is warranted. The Grievance Procedure Manual expressly states that "taking any adverse action against an employee" cannot be granted as relief. ⁴Therefore, the grievant’s request that her supervisors be demoted cannot be granted as relief. While the grievance raises an important management/leadership issue – mutual respect between supervisors and subordinates – such an issue is not appropriate for adjudication by a hearing officer. Accordingly, this issue does not qualify for a hearing.

In closing, the grievance record reflects significant interpersonal conflict between the grievant and her supervisors. We wish to note that mediation through her agency or through EDR may be a viable option to pursue. EDR’s mediation program is a voluntary and confidential process in which two mediators, neutrals from outside the grievant’s agency, help the parties in conflict 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 and work units involved. EDR also offers interactive training sessions on conflict resolution that may benefit both parties.

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 should 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.

Neil A. G. McPhie, Esq.
Director

Leigh A. Brabrand
Employment Relations Consultant