is no authority to “bootstrap” a challenge to an earlier personnel action that was not timely grieved by timely challenging a subsequent personnel decision and arguing that it somehow relates back to the earlier action. The entire focus of this grievance relates back to the Respondent’s earlier decision to eliminate Grievant’s position as an Assistant Principal and transfer her to a non-administrative classroom teaching position. Grievant had an opportunity to present evidence to explain how her grievance was timely but she provided no meaningful facts, only assertions and conjecture regarding Respondent’s motives.

The following Conclusions of Law support the Decision reached.

Conclusions of Law

1. When an employer seeks to have a grievance dismissed on the basis that it was not timely filed, the employer has the burden of demonstrating such untimely filing by a preponderance of the evidence. Once an employer has demonstrated that a grievance has not been timely filed, the employee has the burden of demonstrating a proper basis to excuse her failure to file in a timely manner. Rose v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2012-0188-RalED (Mar. 28, 2012). See Lewis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-20-554 (May 27, 1998).
2. If proven, an untimely filing will defeat a grievance, in which case the merits of the case need not be addressed. Rose, supra. See Lynch v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 97-DOH-060 (July 16, 1997).