The hearing officer recommended finding Game and Fish was not required under N.D.A.C. The hearing officer consolidated the initial reprisal appeal and the RIF appeal. Cool denied Volesky's grievance, and Volesky appealed to the State Personnel Board. Volesky was the only person in the Pilot II classification, and he filed an internal agency grievance, alleging the RIF was a reprisal. While Volesky's reprisal appeal was pending, Game and Fish eliminated the Pilot II classification, effective April 28, 1994, through a RIF. Cool, denied Volesky's grievance, and Volesky appealed to the State Personnel Board. In July 1993, Volesky filed an internal agency grievance, alleging Game and Fish reduced his flying duties as a reprisal for reporting illegal activity and wrongdoing by Game and Fish employees. According to Game and Fish, Volesky's flying duties decreased because the agency decided to use contract pilots and because enforcement staff questioned Volesky's enforcement judgment and refused to fly with him. In 1991, Volesky agreed to an intra-agency transfer from the enforcement division to the administrative services division, and his flying duties subsequently decreased. According to Game and Fish employees, the problems emanated from Volesky's poor enforcement judgment and inability to accept criticism or supervision. According to Volesky, the problems developed after he reported some wardens were padding their expense accounts and were using State vehicles for personal business. In 1991, "some problems" developed with Volesky's work performance. Volesky initially worked in the enforcement division at Game and Fish, where his duties included enforcement flying, aircraft maintenance, and recordkeeping. Volesky was a classified, nonprobationary employee at Game and Fish, holding the position of Pilot II. We hold Game and Fish's elimination of Volesky's job complied with the law for a RIF and the Board's decision that Game and Fish's action was not a reprisal is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dominic Volesky appealed from a judgment affirming a State Personnel Board decision adopting a hearing officer's recommendation that the Game and Fish Department properly eliminated Volesky's job through a reduction in force (RIF). North Dakota Game and Fish Dept., et al.Civil No. Anderson (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, 900 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0041, for defendants and appellees. Box 1258, Bismarck, ND 58502, for plaintiff and appellant. Chapman (argued), of Chapman & Chapman, P.O. Opinion of the Court by Neumann, Justice.ĭaniel J. North Dakota Game and Fish Department and North Dakota State Personnel Board, Defendants and AppelleesĪppeal from the District Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald C. ND Game and Fish Dept., 1997 ND 140, 566 N.W.2d 812įiled July 17, 1997IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA1997 ND 140
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |