The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Murray M. Meeker
On June 9, 1997, the General Accounting Office (GAO) forwarded correspondence to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that it had received from [XXX], an employee at [agency] in [state]. In his correspondence, [XXX] presented a claim for overtime pay in connection with training that he had received in September of 1996. By letter dated June 17, 1997, OPM advised Mr. Davids that OPM could not take jurisdiction over the claim of a federal employee on a matter that is subject to a negotiated grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement between the employees agency and union, unless that matter is or was specifically excluded from the agreements grievance procedure. See 4 C.F.R. 30.1(b). See also Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1425, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990) [construing the provision in the Civil Service Reform Act codified at 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)] and Cecil E. Riggs et al., B-222962.3, April 23, 1992.
OPM subsequently received a request for reconsideration from a union official at [agency] who maintained that the issue that OPM needed to address was whether the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) was authorized to pay [XXX] for his overtime, and that as a separate agency, DFAS was outside the scope of the collective bargaining unit. We note at the outset that having failed to submit a power of attorney from [XXX], the union official lacked authority to request reconsideration in [XXX] behalf. See 4 C.F.R. 31.3.
OPM may, however, clarify its prior determination. Whether DFAS may pay the instant claim simply begs the question of the employee's entitlement under the applicable statutes and regulations, which are subject to arbitration. OPM, therefore, reiterates its earlier determination that it may not take jurisdiction over the claim of a federal employee on a matter that is subject to a negotiated grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement between the employees agency and union, unless that matter is or was specifically excluded from the agreements grievance procedure.