COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges Argued at Richmond, Virginia

DOUGLAS W. STYLES, JR. OPINION BY v. Record No. 0803-03-2 JUDGE WILLIAM H. HODGES AUGUST 10, 2004 CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TH E CITY OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS Michael C. Allen, Judge Tim Schulte (Harris D. Butler; Butler, Williams & Skilling, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. David P. Corrigan (Joseph Robi nson; Harman, Clay tor, Corrigan & Wellman, on brief), for appellee.

Douglas W. Styles, Jr. appeal s from the November 25, 2003 circuit court order denying his petition for enforcement of a grie vance hearing decision by the Personnel Bo ard for the City of Colonial Heights (the City). On appeal, Styles cont ends (1) “the procedural violations by [the City]

are a sufficient basis to reinstate [him] to his former position,” (2 ) “the decision of the Personnel Board is final and binding on the City,” and (3) “the City Manager’s determination is appealable.” The City asserts this case “must be dismissed becaus e it is not an appeal from a final order” and that “this Court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal from a determinat ion made under [] Code § 15.2-1507.” For th e reasons that follow, we agree this C ourt does not have jurisdiction over this matter and, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Background Styles was a police officer employed by the City . On November 17, 20 02, Styles fell asleep while on duty in his marked police vehicle. On December 5, 2002, he was termin ated from his job.-2- Styles challenged his termination by filing a grie vance with the City. On March 17, 2003, a three member panel of the City’s Pers onnel Board conducted a hearing on his grieva nce. On March 31, 2003, the panel decided to reinstat e Styles. On April 10, 2003, the City Manager notified Styles that

the Board’s decision was inconsis tent with the law and City policies and, accordingly, the City would not reinstate Styles. Styles appealed the City Ma nager’s decision to th e circuit court. The circuit court noted that, under Co de § 15.2-1507, the City Manager is empowered to make the final decision whether the relief granted by a grievance panel is consistent with the City’s written policy and concluded that the City Manager’s decision was therefore “not appealable.” From that decision, Styles appeals to this Court. Analysis In pertinent part, Code § 17.1-405 provides: Any aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals from: 1. Any final decision of a circ uit court on appeal from (i) a decision of an administrative agen cy, or (ii) a grievance hearing decision issued pursuant to § 2.2-3005; * * * * * * * 3. Any final judgment, order, or de cree of a circui t court involving: * * * * * * * h. A final grievance hearing decisi on issued pursuant to subsection B of § 2.2-3007. Code § 2.2-3000, et seq ., set forth the State Grievance Procedure, “a system for handling state employee complaints arising in the workpl ace . . . .” Pound v. Dept. of Game and Inland

Fisheries , 40 Va. App. 59, 64, 577 S.E.2d 533, 535 (2003) . Grievance hearing decisions appealable to this Court arise only u nder the State Grievance Procedure.-3- “The General Assembly also requires every city with over fifteen employees to provide all of its non-probationary employees, with cer tain listed exceptions, access to an employee grievance procedure.” City of Virginia Beach v. Hay , 258 Va. 217, 220, 518 S.E.2d 314, 315 (1999). See Code § 15.2-1506. “Under Code § 15.2-1507, grievance procedures adopted by a local governing body must include certain compon ents of the state grievance procedure.” Murphy v. Norfolk Community Services Board , 260 Va. 334, 339, 533 S.E.2d 922, 924 (2000). Although Code § 15.2-1507 requires grievance pro cedures established by localities to be “consistent with the provisions of Chapter 10 (§ 2.2-1000 et seq.) of T itle 2.2,” the locality procedures are distinct from the st ate procedures and arise under a se parate statutory structure. A decision rendered under the locality procedure simply is not a “decision issued pursuant to § 2.2-3005” or a “final grievan ce hearing decision issued pursuant to subsection B of § 2.2-3007.” Code § 17.1-405. Accordingly, while not adopting the trial court’s conclusion that the City Manager’s decision is “not appealable,” we determine only that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and we dismiss Styles’ appeal.

Dismissed.