Opinion ID: 1627546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The EAB had authority to hear Phillips' claim.

Text: The majority holds that the administrative rules of the EAB provide that only grievable issues may come before it and that termination or layoff from duties because of shortage of funds or work is a non-grievable issue. Indeed, Rule 2(C) of the EAB's administrative rules provides that [n]o person may appeal a non-grievable action. Appendix B to the EAB rules states that: The following issues are non-grievable issues under the state service grievance procedure: ... . G. termination or layoff from duties because of shortage of funds or work, material change in duties or organization or a merger of agencies; However, whether the EAB has jurisdiction turns on a fair reading of the employee's claims which must be taken as true. Gill v. Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife Conservation, 574 So.2d 586, 592 (Miss. 1990). Phillips' grievance statement to the EAB alleged specific ways in which the Mississippi State Employee Handbook was not followed during the implementation of the reduction in work force which led to the abolition of his position. He also alleged that his position was abolished in part because of his political involvement and particularly his involvement with [a Representative in the State Legislature] and discussions that he had with the Representative regarding the manner in which the Veterans' Home Purchase Board was being operated. In addition, Phillips claimed that the policies of the MVHPB were weakening the fiscal stability of the MVHPB. Moreover, Phillips alleged that the reason for the abolition of his position was a combination of political, personal and disciplinary reasons disguised as a reduction in force. If Phillips' claims before the EAB were taken as true, then the EAB was entitled to go forward with the appeals process. That is, Phillips' claims did indeed raise grievable issues, according to the EAB administrative rules. Rule 2, subsections (A) and (B) of the EAB administrative rules provide that: 2. WHO MAY APPEAL. ACTIONS WHICH MAY BE APPEALED. A. A permanent state service employee may appeal any action adversely affecting his or her compensation or employment status. B. A permanent state service employee may appeal a grievable action. Appendix A to the EAB rules states that: The following issues are grievable under the state service grievance procedure: A. disciplinary actions, including reprimands, dismissals, demotions, and suspensions; B. application of personnel policies, procedures, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes; .... D. complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex religion, national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation; E. any matter of concern or dissatisfaction to an employee if the matter is subject to the control of agency management (except as provided in Appendix B); Phillips' claim that the motive for the abolition of his position was disciplinary would fall under EAB Rule 2(A). The contention that the MVHPB did not follow the procedures of the State Personnel Board when the MVHPB abolished his position would be governed by EAB Rule 2(B). EAB Rule 2(C) would relate to Phillips' claim that the agency's management implemented fiscally unsound policies. Rule 2(D) would be applicable to Phillips' claim that his position was abolished due to his age and his political affiliations. As stated earlier, for purposes of determining EAB jurisdiction, the claims of the aggrieved employee must be taken as true. Gill, 574 So.2d at 592. If Phillips' claims were true, then they presented grievable issues under the administrative rules of the EAB. Therefore, the EAB acted within its scope of authority when it considered Phillips' claims.