Download state of north carolina - North Carolina Office of Administrative

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
02 OSP 0769
COUNTY OF DURHAM
Jackie Brannon
Petitioner,
v.
Durham County Social Services,
DANIEL HUDGINS
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION
The Contested Case Petition commencing this matter was filed in the Office of
Administrative Hearings on May 7, 2002. The hearing was held on September 12, 2002 and October
16, 2002 before The Honorable Beryl E. Wade, Administrative Law Judge. The petitioner
complained of termination without just cause and failure to receive priority consideration.
APPEARANCES
Petitioner:
Jackie Brannon
516 E. Club Blvd
Durham, North Carolina 27704
Michael A. Jones
100 East Parrish Street
Chancellor Building, Suite 450
Durham, North Carolina 27701
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
Respondent:
Lucy Chavis
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
Post Office Box 3508
Durham, North Carolina 27702
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
ISSUES
Whether Petitioner violated a known work rule by directing an employee to discard forms
that are essential to the function of Department of Social Services, (hereinafter “DSS”), thus
constituting unacceptable personal conduct for which no one should expect a warning and grounds
for termination?
1
Whether Petitioner failed to key in forms that are essential to the function of the DSS, as
requested, thus constituting unsatisfactory job performance?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Petitioner worked as the Clerical Supervisor in the Child Protective Services Unit,
(hereinafter “CPS”), in the Department of Social Services. Petitioner began working in the CPS unit
August 4, 2001. Karen Brown is an Income Maintenance Food Stamp Worker in the CPS unit.
Petitioner is Ms. Brown’s supervisor. Ms. Brown was scheduled to take a leave of absence from
work on November 14, 2001.
2.
In the CPS unit, Ms. Brown is responsible for entering information pertaining to 5207 and
5104 forms. The CPS’s Social Workers, (hereinafter, “SW”), give Ms. Brown 5104 forms to open
child abuse and neglect case in the CPS unit. The 5104's automatically generate a 5027 form. The
5027 forms are used to track child and abuse neglect cases. As the cases progress, the CPS SW’s
submit an updated hard copy of the 5027's to Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown enters the new information
into the CPS’s database. Ms. Brown then places the 5027's in the CPS’s Social Worker Supervisor’s
box, (hereinafter, “SWS”). The 5104 forms are given to Ms. Gail Angle, Program Manager for the
CPS unit. Ms. Angle supervises the Petitioner and Ms. Brown. The 5027 and 5104 forms are keyed
in daily to avoid backlog.
3.
The North Carolina State Office, (hereinafter “State”) monitors child abuse and neglect cases
in the CPS unit. The State conducts audits by reviewing the hard copy of the 5027 and 5104 forms.
The CPS unit receives funding from the State based on the review of the 5027 and 5104 forms.
4.
Ms. Brown testified at no time are the documents to be discarded. Further, at no time did she
instruct Petitioner to discard the forms. Ms. Angel informed the Petitioner of the importance of the
5027's and 5104's. Petitioner knew the importance of the forms and that they were not to be
destroyed or discarded.
5.
Before Ms. Brown’s leave of absence, Ms. Angel requested that Ms. Brown train Petitioner in
the process of handling 5027 and 5104 forms. Ms. Brown trained the Petitioner. Ms. Brown
instructed Petitioner on the process of entering the information on both forms. Ms. Brown instructed
Petitioner to place the 5027 forms in the SWS’s box after entering the information into the system.
Ms. Brown instructed the Petitioner that the 5104 forms were to be given to Ms. Angle. Petitioner
stated she understood the process. Ms. Brown left on her leave of absence.
6.
Petitioner had access to Ms. Brown, during Ms. Brown’s approximately five months of leave
of absence. Petitioner contacted Ms. Brown during her leave of absence. Petitioner did not ask Ms.
Brown where the 5027 forms should be placed, nor did Petitioner ask Ms. Angle. The Petitioner did
not mention to Ms. Angle that she was having problems entering 5104 information into the CPS
database.
2
7.
Mrs. Brown returned to work on March 12, 2002. Petitioner gave Ms. Brown a stack of 5027
forms. Petitioner told Mrs. Brown that she had placed the 5027 forms in the SW’s box, but the SW’s
placed the forms back in the Petitioner’s box. Ms. Brown stated that 5027 forms should be placed in
the SWS’s box. Petitioner instructed Ms. Brown to place them in the confidential bin.
8.
The confidential bin is for documents that are to be destroyed. Victoria Beck, an employee in
the CPS unit, overheard Petitioner instruct Ms. Brown to throw away the documents. Ms. Brown
entered some of the documents to see if they had been keyed in. They were not. Ms. Brown
informed Mrs. Angle.
9.
About a week later Ms. Angle called Ms. Brown into her office. Mrs. Angle asked Ms.
Brown why the 5104 forms were keyed in so late. Ms. Brown informed Ms. Angle that she keyed
the documents that were in the box.
10.
On April 5, and April 8, 2002, Mrs. Angle spoke to Petitioner concerning the 5027 and 5104
forms. Petitioner denied instructing Ms. Brown to discard the 5027 forms and that she had keyed the
5104 forms. April 9, 2002, another meeting was held regarding the aforementioned matter, in which
Gail Perry, Assistant Director of the Child Protective Services Unit, Gail Angle and Petitioner were
in attendance. Petitioner again denied instructing an employee to discard 5027 in violation of a
known work rule and failing to key in 5104 forms in a timely fashion.
11.
April 10, 2002, a Pre-Dismissal Conference was scheduled for April 11, 2002. April 12,
2002 Petitioner was terminated for unacceptable personal conduct, instructing an employee to
discard documents in violation of known work rule, and the Respondent also found unsatisfactory
job performance for failure to enter information in a timely fashion.
12.
The hearing was held on September 12, 2002 and October 16, 2002.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A career state employee may be discharged for just cause. Gainey v. N.C. Dept. of Justice,
121 N.C. App. 253, 465 S.E.2d 36, 41 (1996); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35(a). “Just cause may result
either from unacceptable job performance or unacceptable personal conduct.” Souther v. New River
Area Mental Health Development Disabilities and Substance Abuse, 142 N.C. App. 1, 5, 541 S.E.2d
750, 753 (2001). An employee is not entitled to receive warnings when discharged for unacceptable
personal conduct. Id. The North Carolina Administrative Code provides that an employee “may be
dismissed for a current incident of unacceptable personal conduct...[such as]...the willful violation of
a known or written work rules. 25 NCAC 1I.2304. An employee who has been terminated for
unacceptable conduct has the burden of proof. Souther, 142 N.C. App. at 5, 541. S.E.2d at 753.
3
DECISION
Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge, Beryl E. Wade, finds that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.
Petitioner was terminated for unacceptable personal conduct, violation of a known work rule, and
just cause for termination. Petitioner failed to enter information in a timely fashion which is
unsatisfactory job performance. Thereby, Respondent’s termination of Petitioner is hereby
UPHELD.
NOTICE REGARDING DECISION
The North Carolina State Personnel Commission in this contested case is required to give
each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this decision issued by the Undersigned, and to present
written arguments to the Commission. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(a).
In accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36 the State Personnel Commission shall adopt
each finding of fact contained in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision unless the finding is
clearly contrary to the preponderance of the admissible evidence. For each finding of fact not
adopted by the Commission, the Commission shall set forth separately and in detail the reasons for
not adopting the finding of fact and the evidence in the record relied upon by the Commission in not
adopting the finding of fact. For each new finding of fact made by the Commission that is not
contained in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, the Commission shall set forth separately and
in detail the evidence in the record relied upon by the Commission in making the finding of fact.
The State Personnel Commission shall adopt the decision of the Administrative Law Judge unless
the Commission demonstrates that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is clearly contrary
to the preponderance of the admissible evidence in the official record.
In so far as this matter involves a local government employee subject to Chapter 126 pursuant
to North Carolina General Statute § 126-5(a)(2), the decision of the State Personnel Commission,
absent a finding of discrimination, shall be advisory to the local appointing authority. The State
Personnel Commission shall comply with all requirements of North Carolina General Statute §
150B-44 in making an advisory decision. In so far as this Decision by the Undersigned may be
reviewed by the local appointing authority, it shall be in the nature of a recommended decision to
that authority with no requirements for comment. The local appointing authority is required by
North Carolina General Statute § 126-37 to comment upon the advisory decision of the State
Personnel Commission. The local appointing authority shall issue a written, final decision either
accepting, rejecting, or modifying the advisory decision of the State Personnel Commission. Further
requirements of rights, notices and time lines to the Parties shall be forthcoming from the State
Personnel Commission and/or the local appointing authority as the circumstances and stage of the
process may dictate.
4
This the 19th day of December, 2002.
______________________________
Beryl E. Wade
Administrative Law Judge
5