Issue: Compliance/Consolidation of grievances for hearing; Ruling Date: September 19, 2001; Ruling #2001-177; Agency: Department of Conservation and Recreation; Outcome: Grievances consolidated.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Employment Dispute Resolution

COMPLIANCE RULING OF DIRECTOR

In the matter of Department of Conservation and Recreation

Ruling Number 2001-177

September 19, 2001

Issue:

Should the two grievances filed by the grievant on May 11 and May 18, 2001 be consolidated for purposes of the hearing?

Ruling:

Yes. This Department holds that in the interest of consistency and efficiency, the two grievances shall proceed together to be heard before the same hearing officer. Proceeding in this manner should not prevent the hearing officer from addressing the grievances separately at the hearing as needed for purposes of procedural issues or in determining the substantive merits of each grievance. This Department’s rulings on matters of compliance are final and nonappealable.1

Explanation:

On May 11, 2001, the grievant initiated a grievance to challenge a Group II Written Notice issued on April 13, 2001 for failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions and perform assigned work. 2The grievant initiated a second grievance on May 18, 2001, to challenge a Group II Written Notice with suspension issued on April 18, 2001, for failure to follow supervisor’s instructions. 3The grievant seeks consolidation and the agency concurs.

This Department has long held that grievances may be consolidated by mutual agreement of the parties, or absent such agreement, by this Department whenever the grievances challenge the same action or series of actions or arise out of the same material facts. EDR strongly favors consolidation and will grant a consolidation request unless there is a persuasive reason to process the grievances individually. 4 If consolidation for hearing would be impracticable, the EDR Director may direct that the grievance be heard by the same hearing officer, but with separate hearings and decisions.5

In this case, the two grievances challenge a series of actions arising out of the same material facts and both parties wish to have them heard before one hearing officer.

Neil A. G. McPhie, Esq.

Director

June M. Foy

Senior Consultant

1See Va. Code § 2.1-116.03(5).
2Grievant was cited for (1) refusal to sign and seal contract documents as directed by a supervisor and as required by the state and (2) knowingly and willfully disregarding a supervisor's direct instruction and ignoring a state requirement.
3Grievant was cited for (1) contacting coworkers to discuss conflict with management over signing and sealing roof project documents and (2) unauthorized contact of the Attorney General's Office.
4Grievance Procedure Manual § 8.5, page 22.
5Rules for Conducting Grievance Hearings, III. (C), page 3.