Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Classification Appeal Decision
Under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code

---

Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


09/30/2014

---

Date

On March 28, 2014, OPM’s Dallas Agency Compliance and Evaluation accepted a classification appeal from [appellant name].  The appellant’s position is currently classified as Cartographer, GS-1370-11, but he believes it should be classified to the GS-12 grade level.  The position is assigned to the [organization] (Center), United States Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, in [city, state].

The appellant’s official position description (PD), number [number], is standardized and covers positions Center-wide.  The OPM accepted and processed separate classification appeals from two other employees occupying identical additional PDs but assigned to a different section in the Center with supervisory reporting relationships different from the appellant’s.  To fully consider the complexity of the project work performed by each employee, we have processed the appeals separately.  We received the complete agency’s administrative report (AAR) on May 21, 2014, and the appellant’s comments on the AAR on May 28, 2014.  The agency subsequently forwarded comments to OPM on June 16, 2014; in response, the appellant provided additional comments on June 18 and 25, 2014.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background and general issues

The appellant initially attempted to resolve the classification of his position through the negotiated grievance procedures.  In May 2011, he and other Center employees filed a grievance concerning the agency not promoting the position to the GS-12 grade level.  The appellant states his PDs and Standard Form (SF) 50s identify the GS-12 grade level as the full performance level (FPL) of the position.  As indicated by the transcript provided to OPM of the January 2014 arbitration hearing between the agency and union, the arbitrator determined the employees would file a classification appeal with OPM.  The arbitrator further states:

Pending that decision, that will resolve a fact issue in this case as to whether they have, in fact, from the date this grievance was filed or through currently are performing or have performed at the GS-12 level.  And based on that, the parties have agreed if they are or have, I will order an appropriate order of back pay…

As arranged by the arbitrator, grievance proceedings will be “held in abeyance” while OPM adjudicated the classification appeal.  The appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with OPM.

The appellant submitted numerous PD coversheets and SF 50s identifying the FPL of his position as GS-12.  The agency explains in its June 16, 2014, comments to OPM:

[The appellant’s] FPL, like all Cartographers, was set at the FPL of GS-12.  Since that time the mapping center was reorganized and the [Center] was established.  Another function was split out of the [Center] to become the [name] Center.  It was determined that the FPL of GS-12 was not supportable for all Cartographer work.  The employees filed a union grievance and entered into arbitration.  Management has asked HR not to make the change in FPL until the arbitration process is complete.

The arbitrator suggests an OPM classification appeal would consider the appropriate classification of the duties and responsibilities performed by the appellant since May 2011, i.e., the filing date of the grievance.  The appellant submitted numerous performance appraisal and award forms, which he states includes language in the justification for the rating or award similar to that used by the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Professional Work in the Physical Science Group, GS-1300, to describe GS-12 grade level work.  Quality of work, however, cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).  We further noted the performance appraisal and award forms date back variously from 1999 to 2010.  The appellant also provided work examples, dated from 1998 to 1999, which he said demonstrates the GS-12 grade level work.  For example, he provided a document showing he, in 1999, served as a project point of contact, a responsibility he states is normally delegated to GS-12 or GS-13 cartographers.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper classification of the existing duties and responsibilities assigned by management to the appellant’s position and performed by him.  We cannot consider duties he performed as far back as 1998, as he requests.

Regardless of the arbitrator’s statements to the contrary, the OPM can consider only current duties and responsibilities in classifying positions (5 U.S.C. 5112).  Established OPM guidance requires that a representative work cycle be determined for establishing what work is characteristic of the work of a position for classification evaluation.  We must focus on the more recent work performed by the appellant constituting the current work cycle within the meaning of the classification process.  For the appellant’s position, 12 months is a reasonable timeframe during which a full cycle of work can be completed.  Therefore, our analysis will focus on the current work performed by the appellant during the most recent 12 month period.

When identifying duties to consider in classifying a position, The Classifier’s Handbook instructs:

They should be only those duties currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue or recur on a regular basis over a period of time, such as one year.  The period of time considered should cover the full cycle of duties performed.  This may vary from a few months for very simple clerical work to a more lengthy period for work that involves long term cases or projects.

The Introduction further states:

One-time only or temporary duties generally do not affect the series or grade level.  Such duties cannot be ignored, however, when they become a regular part of a job.  The position should be reevaluated if the duties extend over a long period of time (e.g., several months) and it is reasonable to assume that the duties will continue to recur, even if not in a precisely predictable pattern.

We conclude that in addition to not meeting the 5 U.S.C. 5112 requirement for duties to be current, the work examples provided by the appellant can be described as either one-time or temporary duties with no indication he performs or will perform the duties on an ongoing basis.  Our interviews, the PD, and other items of record do not support his continuing to perform the point-of-contact and other work mentioned by the appellant.  Although the arbitrator erroneously suggests an OPM classification appeal would consider the appropriate classification of duties performed since May 2011, we note the appellant has been assigned to the same unit since mid-2010 and thus performing cartographic duties and responsibilities of similar type, nature, and complexity since that time.  We fully consider those duties under the grade determination section.

The arbitrator also suggests back pay as a remedy should it be determined the appellant is performing GS-12 grade level work.  It is well settled that employees are statutorily barred from receiving back pay for periods of misclassification (5 U.S.C. 5596(b)(3)).  See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976) and Erlyn D. Felder, B-202685, August 17, 1982.  Further, the U.S. Comptroller General states that an “…employee is entitled only to the salary of the position to which he is actually appointed, regardless of the duties performed.  When an employee performs the duties of a higher grade level, no entitlement to the salary of the higher grade exists until such time as the individual is actually promoted.  Consequently, back pay is not available as a remedy for misassignments to higher level duties or improper classifications” (CG decision B-232695, December 15, 1989).

The appellant provided a GS-1370-12 PD assigned to the [name] Center along with handwritten notes on the document to indicate he performs a number of the major duties listed.  He also states he performs work similar to GS-12 cartographers in his organization “that do exactly the same type of work that [he does], just a different data theme.”  However, positions which may on the surface appear similar may include significantly different duties and responsibilities that affect the classification.  By law, we must make our own classification decisions solely by comparing the appellant’s current duties and responsibilities to OPM position classification standards (PCS) and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5106, 5107, and 5112).  Since comparison to standards is the exclusive method for classifying positions, we cannot compare the appellant’s current position to other positions that may or may not have been classified correctly.  Consequently, we based this appeal decision on the current duties and responsibilities assigned by management to the appellant’s position and performed by him.

Like OPM, the appellant’s agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM PCSs and guidelines.  The agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions.  If the appellant considers his position so similar to others that they should be classified the same, then he may pursue the matter by writing to the human resources office of his agency’s headquarters.  In doing so, he should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  If the appellant’s position is so similar to other positions that they all warrant the same classification, the agency must correct the classification of those positions to be consistent with this appeal decision.  Otherwise, the agency should explain to the appellant the differences between his position and the others.

The appellant asks OPM to consider the concept of impact of the person on the job in determining his position’s classification.  He states the concept “applies exactly to me currently and during the past several years as I have received several Superior performance appraisal ratings, I have received the more difficult work assignments and the freedom to complete the assignments on my own.”  Though he mentions the quality of his work as well as the complexity of and independence within which he completes assignments, the appellant does not explain or provide evidence that the impact concept should be applied, i.e., his competence makes the position materially different from what it otherwise would be.  The concept, addressed in the Introduction, holds that an employee, by virtue of exceptional competence, may have such an impact on the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position that it changed to the point where its classification must also be changed.  The mere fact that an individual in a position possesses higher qualifications or stands out from other individuals in comparable positions is not sufficient reason by itself to classify the position to a higher grade.  After careful consideration, it is evident that the current duties performed by the appellant are entirely consistent with the major duties and responsibilities described by his PD and fall under the appellant’s scope of responsibility as described by his official PD.  Therefore, the impact of the person on the job, a concept weighed only when a position is materially different from what it otherwise would be, is not applicable to the appellant’s situation.

The appellant states he acts in the supervisor’s absence.  Work performed in the absence of another employee cannot be considered in determining the grade of a position (Introduction, Section III.J., and The Classifier’s Handbook, chapter 5).

In addition, the appellant states he was to be assigned to work in the Special Applications Facility but later told he would be assigned elsewhere.  He said other cartographers assigned to the Facility were later promoted to the GS-12 grade level.  The appellant also asserts other Center cartographers have been either non-competitively promoted to the GS-12 grade level or offered training and other advancement opportunities not presented to him.  By law (5 U.S.C. 302 and 5102(a)(3)), agency management has the right to establish positions and determine the work assignable to each position.  Also see 5 U.S.C. 7106 with regard to organization situations under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C.  Such actions are not reviewable under the classification appeals process.

Position information

The Center supports the acquisition and management of reliable geospatial data, products, and services though geospatial technical expertise and customer service for the USGS and the country.  The Center supports The National Map (TNM) which is a collaborative effort among the USGS and other Federal, State, and local partners to improve and deliver topographic information for the country.  Use for TNM includes recreational, scientific analysis, and emergency responses.

The appellant’s cartographer position is assigned to the Structures and Boundaries Unit of the Transportation, Structures, and Boundaries Section.  The unit is responsible for obtaining datasets representing structures and boundaries (e.g., the border of a national park).  The appellant’s work includes data preparation, assessment, integration, and analysis, as well as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications support.

We discuss the appellant’s project work in greater detail under the grade determination section.  In general, though, his work entails constructing complex datasets for use in TNM and GIS applications, analyzing formats of data and determining the most efficient methodology required for integrating data in TNM.  He collects, converts, and assures the quality of geospatial data.  The appellant’s first-level supervisor is the Unit Supervisor (a GS-1370-12 cartographer) and second-level supervisor is the Section Chief (a GS-1370-13 cartographer).

The appellant and second-level supervisor certified to the accuracy of his official standardized PD.  A position represents the duties and responsibilities that make up the work performed by an employee.  Those duties and responsibilities are customarily documented in a PD so the employee, supervisors, and other parties will know what essential features comprise the position.  Major duties are normally those occupying a significant portion of the employee’s time and should be only those duties currently assigned, observable, identified with the position’s purpose and organization, and expected to continue to recur on a regular basis over a period of time.  The appellant’s official PD is a standardized PD intended to cover multiple cartographer positions at the GS-11 level.  Standardized PDs typically use a broad description that does not provide the specificity that would be found in a PD developed for a single position.  Position classification appeal regulations permit OPM to investigate or audit a position and decide an appeal on the basis of the duties and responsibilities assigned by management and performed by the employee.  Because an OPM appeal decision classifies a real operating position and not simply the work depicted in a PD, this decision is based on the actual work assigned to and performed by the employee.

We find the PD of record contains the major duties assigned to and performed by the appellant, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision.  Though certifying to the accuracy of the PD, the first- and second-level supervisors assert the appellant does not perform seven of the 11 major duties listed in the PD.  To ensure only duties assigned to and performed by an incumbent are considered for classification purposes, the PD should be amended or include an accompanying correction notice to document the discrepancies between duties actually assigned and performed from duties listed in the standardized PD.

We conducted a telephone audit with the appellant on September 8, 2014, and a telephone interview with his immediate supervisor on August 26, 2014.  In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all of the information obtained from those interviews as well as written information provided by the appellant and his agency, including his official PD.

Series, title, and standard determination

The agency assigned the appellant’s position to the GS-1370 Cartographer Series, titled it Cartographer, and used the JFS for Professional Work in the Physical Science Group, GS-1300, to determine the grade of his position.  The appellant does not disagree and, after careful review of the record, we concur.

Grade determination

The GS-1300 JFS describes, in a narrative format, grade-level criteria for evaluating non-supervisory positions from GS-5 through GS-15 and includes appropriate language from the law, supplemented by more specific material, and illustrations of work appropriate to each grade level.  Positions are graded as a whole against the criteria found at differing grades in the standard and are then classified to the grade that best represents the overall demands of the work.

At the GS-11 level, the law describes positions performing, with wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, responsible work of considerable difficulty requiring somewhat extended professional, scientific, or technical training and experience which has demonstrated important attainments and marked capacity for independent work.

At the GS-11 level, the JFS describes scientists that plan and execute complex studies usually involving intensive investigations into one or more recognized phenomena.  The work typically involves conventional methods and techniques, though going beyond clear precedents, and requires adapting methods to the problems at hand and interpreting findings in terms of their scientific significance.  Finished products are reviewed for adequacy of conclusions and soundness of the procedures and methods used.  Assignments at this level generally do not involve radical departures from past practices or require the development of new, novel, or innovative approaches, methods, or techniques.  At the GS-11 level, scientists have wide latitude for exercising independent judgment in performing work of considerable difficulty requiring somewhat extended professional, scientific, or technical training and experience which has demonstrated important attainments and marked capacity for sound independent action or decision.

At the GS-12 level, the law describes positions performing, under general administrative supervision and with wide latitude for the exercise of independent judgment, professional, scientific, or technical work of marked difficulty and responsibility requiring extended professional, scientific, or technical training and experience which has demonstrated leadership and attainment of a high order in professional, scientific, or technical research, practice, or administration.

At the GS-12 level, the JFS describes positions that typically involve planning, executing, and reporting on original studies or ongoing studies requiring a fresh approach to resolve new problems.  The complexity of assignments requires extensive modification and adaptation of standard procedures, etc., and development of totally new methods and techniques to address problems for which guidelines or precedents are not substantially applicable.  Assignments typically include considerable breadth, diversity, and intensity; varied, complex features; and novel or obscure problems.  Completed work is reviewed primarily for general acceptability and feasibility, and scientific recommendations are normally accepted as sound without close review unless matters of policy or program resources are involved.

The appellant’s position meets the GS-11 level.  As at this level, he exercises independent judgment in performing cartographic work of considerable difficulty.  For example, he plans and executes the complex projects of his unit associated with the collection and maintenance of data comprising the National Structures Dataset (NSD), one of the eight data layers of TNM.  The supervisor assigns work to the appellant by providing general instructions and identifying the States or area where validation or compilation of structures data is required.  Structures are represented in the NSD by points containing data including the name, function, location, and other core characteristics of the manmade facility.  Structures data are collected for hospitals, cemeteries, ambulance service, law enforcement, fire stations, prisons or correctional facilities, colleges and universities, schools, State capitols, and post offices.  The appellant compares existing NSD information with data submitted by the general public, contractors, State partners, and other Federal agencies for the purpose of NSD inclusion.  By operating various applications of the ArcGIS (i.e., the agency’s off-the-shelf GIS for working with maps and geographic information), he evaluates source data by validating the information from a sample of data points.  He provides data quality feedback to his supervisor.  The appellant analyzes the format of the dataset, deciding the most efficient approach for integration in TNM and converting the dataset to the appropriate format.  He reviews the data associated with the point, determining if the structure exists, is positioned correctly, and correctly identifies accompanying attributes.  The attributes of a point feature include name, location, address, building name, city, state, and zip code.  When necessary, the appellant conducts Web research or contacts the facility to validate the accuracy of the attributes.  He creates points for new structures.  The appellant’s cartographic work follows the internal policies and instructions established by his supervisor for the operation of ArcGIS tools, nomenclature, do’s and don’ts of data validation and compilation, etc.

The relevant illustration included in the JFS at the GS-11 level follows:

Performs one or more cartographic duties such as source assessment, geopositioning, data extraction and capture, and product generation.  Typical activities at this level include identifying and evaluating data sources for applicability and quality; operating stereoscopic instruments to perform automated and interactive point selection; extracting digital terrain data; editing and symbolizing content to produce a specific graphic product according to product specifications; and coordinating the day-to-day production processes for both digital and graphic geospatial output according to specifications for assigned projects.  Solves a variety of cartographic problems, adapts precedents or makes significant departures from previous approaches to similar projects to accommodate specialized requirements of some projects.  Exercises initiative and originality in solving problems relating to complex map finishing, revisions, automated cartography, and digital data.  Tests and evaluates new or modified cartographic instruments, techniques, methods, or practices.  Applies standard practices of other scientific disciplines as they relate to cartography.

Similarly, the appellant performs source assessment, data extraction and capture, and other cartographic duties and tasks associated with the collection, conversion, and conduct of quality assurance of geospatial data for the NSD.  He exercises initiative and originality when resolving the variety of cartographic problems he encounters when aggregating old data with the new; for example, he edits and manipulates geospatial data in the keyhole markup language (KML) file and a variety of other formats, scales, resolutions, etc.  Similar to the GS-11 level, the appellant resolves this and the other problems that typically arise from dealing with multiple data sources, volume of data received, and unreliable data sources.  Once work is completed, the supervisor may validate some of the structure points but will typically review his work to ensure overall requirements are met, general instructions are followed, and data was incorporated.  This type of review is consistent with the GS-11 level JFS and illustration where work is reviewed for adequacy and soundness of procedures and methods used.

The appellant’s position does not meet the GS-12 level.  Unlike this level, his assignments do not involve original or ongoing studies requiring a fresh approach to resolve new problems.  The appellant’s assignments involve the assessment, preparation, integration, output, and dissemination of geospatial data.  He reviews source data and determines the course of action necessary to convert data from KML, Excel, or other provided format to the appropriate ArcGIS layout.  He links source data together with ArcGIS tools, editing existing or new information for point structures.  Though it requires changing the source data format, editing information on features, and moving or deleting points when necessary, the appellant’s work does not require extensive modification and adaptation of standard procedures and development of totally new methods and techniques to perform this and other work as described at the GS-12 level.  In addition, his assignments do not involve the considerable breadth, diversity, and intensity; varied, complex features; and novel or obscure problems expected at this level.  Instead, the purpose of the appellant’s work is to update and maintain the currency of NSD information where structures are not connected on the map but instead represented by a point.  He extracts the relevant structures from the database, decides which structures require update, and prepares datasets for the project assignment.  His work affects the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and acceptability of geospatial data and the output generated from them (e.g., data used for disaster planning, emergency response, and homeland security purposes).  The recommendations he makes normally involve improving or condensing the unit’s work processes.  Though his supervisor assesses his work for general acceptability and feasibility, the appellant’s completed work does not involve making scientific, as opposed to process improvement, recommendations as expected at the GS-12 level.

The relevant illustration included in the JFS at the GS-12 level follows:

Develops and monitors the production of geospatial data to support agency geographic information systems and hardcopy map generation for a staff unit.  Work on inter- and intra-agency committees to develop and/or revise Federal standards for geospatial data.  Revises agency cartographic standards and specifications.  Provides staff advisory, consulting, and reviewing services.  Applies standard cartographic practices to new situations and solves novel or obscure problems.  Exercises initiative and originality in the solution of cartographic problems.  Serves as a technical authority on all aspects of cartography.

Nonsupervisory positions assigned to the appellant’s structures unit include two GS-9 cartographic technicians, a GS-9 geographer, three GS-11 cartographers, and a GS-12 cartographer.  The appellant provides advice and reviews work at the request of the unit’s less experienced staff members.  He occasionally assigns work and provides instructions to staff members assigned to assist him with a project.  This is not comparable to the more demanding staff advisory and consulting services found at the GS-12 level.  In contrast to the illustration at the GS-12 level, he does not work on inter- and intra-agency committees to develop and/or revise Federal standards for geospatial data nor does he revise agency cartographic standards and specifications.  Also unlike the illustration at the GS-12 level, the appellant does not exercise initiative and originality to solve cartographic problems.  Instead, he resolves problems associated, for example, with the image or data layer not displaying correctly, the duplication of features, and the point including incorrect attributes.  These and other problems are representative of the appellant’s day-to-day production work rather than being characteristic of novel or obscure problems as described at the GS-12 level.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as Cartographer, GS-1370-11.

Back to Top