Issue: Qualification, Compensation/Leave: Salary Dispute, Methods/Means: Transfer, Benefits: Virginia Retirement System Ruling date February 16, 2001, Ruling #2001U; Agency Virginia State Police, Outcome: Not qualified.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Employment Dispute Resolution


QUALIFICATION RULING OF DIRECTOR

In the matter of Department of State Police
February 16, 2001

The grievant has requested a ruling on whether his grievance initiated on October 10, 2000 with the Department of State Police (VSP) qualifies for a hearing.1 The grievant claims that management unfairly applied compensation policy in relocating his place of assignment.2 For the reasons discussed below, this grievance does not qualify for a hearing.

FACTS

The grievant was employed by the Virginia State Police and worked in northern Virginia, where he received the authorized northern Virginia salary differential, which added 10 pay steps to his salary. On September 12, 2000, VSP reassigned him to work in an area outside of northern Virginia. Upon reassignment, his salary reverted to the standard rate of pay for his grade, resulting in an approximate salary decrease of $10,000 annually. In addition, his life insurance and retirement benefits, both of which were salary-based, were also reduced.

The grievant determined that the reassignment would cause him to incur undue expenses in relocating his family and selling his home. He concluded that the maximum reimbursement limit of $11,000, contained in the state Moving and Relocation Policy, would be inadequate for full reimbursement of his estimated expenses.

DISCUSSION

By statute and under the grievance procedure, management reserves the exclusive right to manage the affairs and operations of state government.3 Therefore, claims relating to issues such as the establishment or revision of wages, salaries, or general benefits and the content of established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations, generally do not qualify for 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.4

In this case, the grievant does not claim that his reassignment was the result of discrimination, retaliation, or discipline. Further, there are no facts to support the position that management misapplied policy or applied policy unfairly in determining that the grievant's reimbursement for moving expenses could not exceed the limits contained in the state Moving and Relocation Policy, or that upon his reassignment from northern Virginia, he would no longer be entitled to a 10-step salary differential. Indeed, the grievant is in essence disputing the contents of policy, not the application of policy, a challenge that the grievance procedure expressly excludes from qualification, unless there is some support for a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or discipline. The grievant asserts no such claim in this instance. Accordingly, this issue does not qualify for hearing.

APPEAL RIGHTS AND OTHER INFORMATION

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, he must notify his Human Resources Office, in writing, within five workdays of his receipt of this ruling. If the court should qualify this grievance, within five workdays of receipt of the court's decision, the agency must request the appointment of a hearing officer, unless the grievant notifies the agency that he does not wish to proceed.

 

Neil A.G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

June M. Foy
Employment Relations Consultant

1 Please note that recent changes to the grievance statute have resulted in changes to the grievance procedure. If a grievance was filed on or after July 1, 2000, the grievance will be governed by the new procedure (Grievance Procedure Manual, effective July 1, 2000). If a grievance was filed before July 1, 2000, the grievance will be governed by the old procedure (Grievance Procedure, effective July 1, 1995, as amended July 1, 1999). Because this grievance was initiated on or after July 1, 2000, this ruling is issued in accordance with the rules contained in the new procedure manual. Please also note that effective July 1, 2000, this Department's name was changed from the Department of Employee Relations Counselors to the Department of Employment Dispute Resolution (EDR), and the Department of Personnel and Training became the Department of Human Resource Management (DHRM).
2 Specifically, the grievant claimed that: (1) he was given insufficient advance notification of reassignment (this claim was later withdrawn by the grievant); (2) the Moving and Relocation Policy contains inadequate reimbursement limits to cover the cost of his move; and (3) reassignment would result in a downward salary adjustment due the loss of the Northern Virginia salary differential ($48,287 to $38,645).
3 Va. Code § 2.1-116.06(B).
4 Va. Code § 2.1-116(A) and (C); Grievance Procedure Manual § 4.1, pages 10-11.