Issue: Compliance/Consolidation; Ruling Date September 27, 2001; Ruling #2001-179;
Agency: Department of Corrections; Outcome: Consolidation of grievances for purpose of hearing.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Employment Dispute Resolution
COMPLIANCE RULING OF DIRECTOR
In the matter of Department of Corrections
Ruling Number 2001-179
September 27, 2001
Issue:
Should the two grievances filed by the grievant on August 14, 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 August 14, 2001, the grievant initiated a grievance to challenge a Group III Written Notice with termination issued on August 3, 2001 for being an accessory to fraternization with inmates.2 The grievant initiated a second grievance on August 14 to challenge a Group III Written Notice with termination also issued on August 3 for fraternization with inmates.3 The 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