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



06/16/2016

---

Date

As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  The agency is responsible for reviewing its classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with this decision.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards (Introduction), appendix 4, section G (address provided in appendix 4, section H).

Since this decision changes the series and title of the appealed position, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision, as permitted by 5 CFR 511.702.  The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected position description and Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the OPM office that accepted this appeal.

Introduction

On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Dallas Agency Compliance and Evaluation accepted a classification appeal from Mr. Steven D. Rice.  The appellant’s position is classified as Supervisory Park Ranger (Law Enforcement/Refuge), GS-025-11, but he believes it should be classified to the GS-1801 General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Series and at the 12 grade level based on his supervisory duties.  The position is assigned to the Lake Havasu Refuges Complex (Complex), National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 2, Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), U.S. Department of the Interior (Department), in Parker, Arizona.  We received the complete agency’s administrative report on November 17, 2015, and the appellant’s comments on that report on November 20, 2015.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5112 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

Background and general issues

The Service is in the process of reclassifying law enforcement positions from the GS-025 Park Ranger Series to the GS-1801 series.  In support of that effort, the Service implemented new standard position descriptions (SPDs) for use Service-wide covering senior Federal wildlife officer (FWO) positions classified as GS-1801-11.  The record shows the Service’s Division of Human Resources determined no SPDs would be developed for FWO positions with supervisory responsibilities due to differences between the regions.  Classification of supervisory positions would remain the responsibility of the regional offices.  The appellant requested a desk audit of his position from his region in November 2014.  In August 2015, his immediate supervisor notified him that he had reviewed his official position description (PD), concluded he performed work consistent with duties listed in the PD, and withdrew his support for a desk audit of the position.  When the desk audit request was closed without action, the appellant subsequently filed a classification appeal with OPM.

The appellant believes his position is appropriately classified at the GS-12 level, in part, because he asserts the Service fills law enforcement positions with no supervisory responsibilities at the 11 grade level and half of the law enforcement positions with supervisory responsibilities at the 12 grade level.  By law, we must classify positions solely by comparing their duties and responsibilities to OPM standards 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 position to other positions, which may or may not be classified correctly.

Like OPM, the agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM’s position classification standards and guidelines.  In accordance with 5 CFR 511.612, agencies are required to review their own classification decisions for identical, similar, or related positions to ensure consistency with OPM certificates.  Consequently, the appellant’s agency has primary responsibility for ensuring its positions are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions.  If the appellant believes his position is classified inconsistently with another, then he may pursue this matter by writing to the human resources office at Service headquarters.  He should specify the precise organizational location, series, title, grade, and responsibilities of the positions in question.  The agency should explain to him the differences between his position and the others, or classify those positions in accordance with this appeal decision.

The appellant asked his agency to remove supervisory responsibilities from his position while maintaining his current grade level and “simply have the GS-12 duties reassigned.”  The authority to assign work to positions is statutorily vested in agency management.  See 5 U.S.C. 302.  Therefore, agency decisions concerning the assignment of work are not reviewable under the classification appeals process.

Position information

The primary purpose of the appellant’s law enforcement position is to provide visitor and resource protection at the Complex, which includes both Havasu and Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge.  Public use is high at the Complex with approximately three million visitors annually.  The Complex is located in Western Arizona and covers approximately 44,000 acres including 30 miles of the Colorado River and 300 miles of shoreline between Arizona and California.  Law enforcement activities are complicated by commercial and urban development, commercial uses on the Colorado River, and high intensity recreational boating, fishing, and hunting activities at the Complex.  The appellant’s position reports directly to the Complex Manager (a GS-485-14 Wildlife Refuge Manager position).

We will discuss the appellant’s duties and responsibilities in more detail later in the decision.  His official PD, number 10SLE11, and other material of record furnish much more information about his duties and responsibilities and how they are performed, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision.  The appellant and Complex Manager certified to the accuracy of the duties described in his official PD.

To help decide this appeal, we conducted telephone audits with the appellant on February 11 and 19, 2016, in addition to follow up correspondence.  We conducted telephone interviews with the Complex Manager on February 22, 2016, and April 26, 2016.  We also conducted a telephone interview on April 28, 2016, with the Federal Wildlife Zone Officer, the regional level position responsible for providing law enforcement support and oversight to the field locations within the zone.  In reaching our classification decision, we carefully considered all of the information gained from these interviews, as well as the written information furnished by the appellant and his agency.

Series determination

The appellant’s position is currently assigned to the GS-025 Park Ranger Series, which includes positions the primary duties of which are to supervise, manage, and/or perform work in the conservation and use of Federal park resources.  This involves functions such as park conservation; natural, historical, and cultural resource management; and the development and operation of interpretive and recreational programs for the benefit of the visiting public.  Duties characteristically include assignments such as:  forest and structural fire control; protection of property from natural or visitor related depredation; dissemination to visitors of general, historical, or scientific information; folk art and craft demonstrations; control of traffic and visitor use of facilities; enforcement of laws and regulations; investigations of violations, complaints, trespass/encroachment, and accidents; search and rescue missions; and management activities related to resources such as wildlife, lakeshores, seashores, forests, historic buildings, battlefields, archeological properties, and recreation areas.

The appellant believes his position should be classified to the GS-1801 General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Series, which includes positions the primary duties of which are to supervise, lead, or perform inspection, investigation, enforcement, or compliance work when such work is covered by two or more administrative occupations in the General Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Group, 1800, and no one occupation predominates; or is consistent with the occupational group but not covered by an established series in the 1800 group.

The appellant’s work falls into three different areas:  enforcement, investigations, and program management.  He is responsible for the enforcement of Service regulations and policies and criminal laws of the United States.  His enforcement work is accomplished by monitoring and patrolling lands; anticipating various seasonal activities such as hunting, fishing, and spring break activities in order to patrol areas where potential problems may arise; and informing visitors about the proper use of Service lands and resources.  The appellant maintains a visible presence at the Complex to deter violations; observe the use of public lands and resources; identify problems; explain laws and regulations to visitors; detect, anticipate, and investigate violations; and issue violation notices (tickets), warning notices, and other actions against violators.

The appellant’s investigative work involves conducting investigations into misdemeanor and felony crimes and offenses against Service regulations and Federal criminal laws.  He investigates incidents of, for example, arson, illegal disposal of hazardous waste, vandalism and theft of Government property, traffic violations, possession or sale of illegal drugs, crimes against persons or property, drug and other contraband smuggling, and trespassing.  He also investigates violations of Federal and State fish and wildlife laws such as disturbance of fish and wildlife including threatened and endangered species, animal and plant poaching, illegal hunting of waterfowl, and illegal commercial activities.  Depending on the incident, the appellant’s investigative work may involve preserving the crime scene, collecting physical evidence at the scene, interviewing witnesses and suspects, corroborating information, locating and analyzing pertinent documents, using surveillance or undercover techniques, evaluating the facts, preparing reports, issuing warnings or violation notices, and testifying at hearings and trials.  His investigations are complicated by encounters with a wide variety of violations, incidents occurring far from his duty station, or evasive and potentially dangerous violators.

In addition, the appellant manages, plans, and develops the law enforcement program, policies, and procedures for the Complex.  He coordinates with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Complex on patrol activities, resource protection (hunting and fishing), emergency response, and other law enforcement activities.  For example, his work requires coordination with the Arizona and California Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Land Department, Bureau of Land Management and other components of the Department, and other Federal agencies to coordinate efforts, maintain cooperative agreements, assist with search and rescue missions, or resolve complaints or problems involving multiple jurisdictions.  The appellant also conducts control and defensive tactics and other training, provides advice on law enforcement matters to managers and other staff at the Complex, and establishes procedures for conducting plainclothes operations, ride-alongs, and other law enforcement activities.

The primary purpose of the appellant’s position is to protect public lands, resources, facilities, employees, and visitors within the Complex.  He is not responsible for performing the diverse range of work covered by the GS-025 series including park conservation, development and operation of interpretive and recreational programs, and natural, historical, and cultural resource management.  Moreover, the GS-025 series specifically excludes from coverage work in planning and conducting case investigations of persons or organizations requiring application of full investigative knowledge, skills, techniques, and methods, and several days of extended periods of information collection, analysis, and evaluation for completion.  Also excluded from series coverage is law enforcement work in protecting life and property by maintaining law and order, preventing crime, detecting or investigating violations of law, preserving peace, and enforcing laws.  However, such investigative and enforcement work is central and equally important to the appellant’s position.  As his particular mix of duties involves more than one occupation in the GS-1800 group (e.g., the GS-1810 General Investigation and the GS-1811 Criminal Investigation series), we find his position classifiable to the GS-1801 series.

Title and standards determination

The agency states the appellant’s position is supervisory because he spends a minimum of 25 percent of his time supervising Federal employees; thus, meeting the requirements for coverage and evaluation by the General Schedule Supervisory Guide (GSSG).  The record shows his position provides supervision to four FWOs (GL-1801 Land Management Law Enforcement Officer positions with a GS-9 full performance level).  At the time of our acceptance of his classification appeal, the appellant supervised three FWOs while the fourth position was vacant, which we were advised by the Complex Manager remained listed on organization charts but he assumed that it would “likely never be filled again due to budget shortfalls.”  The agency, however, subsequently decided to fill the position.

The appellant estimated spending at least 25 percent of his time supervising one GL-7 and two GL-9 FWOs to include organizing work functions, directing staff to complete tasks, providing advice, and reviewing draft investigation, incident, and other reports for adequacy, completeness, and compliance with policy.

Classification principles require agreement between the supervision given as described in a supervisor’s PD with the supervision received as described in the PDs of subordinate employees.  We note the PDs, certified as current and accurate by competent management authority, credited the FWOs with supervisory controls at Level 2-3 for completing assignments independently with minimal supervision.  However, literal interpretation of the work controls described and the amount of supervision time estimated (i.e., 10 hours a week) by the appellant would result in the crediting of the FWO positions at Level 2-2 within the Factor Evaluation System, calling into question the current grade level assigned to those positions.  At Level 2-2, supervisors provide instructions on the purpose of the assignment and its scope, limitations, expected deadlines, and priorities, and provide additional instructions and/or suggested work methods for new, difficult, or unusual assignments.  The appellant’s shift overlaps the shifts worked by his subordinate FWOs.  Since he is regularly unavailable for part and sometimes the entire shift worked by his subordinate employees given their overlapping shifts, it is reasonable to conclude the supervisory controls over the GS-9 FWO positions are creditable at Level 2-3 as described by the PD.  He also stated he expends a significant amount of time supervising one of the employees, requiring he seek advice from human resources staff, counsel the employee, and draft and issue letters to address concerns.  Regardless, performance and conduct issues are transitory with either the subordinate employee making appropriate adjustments or his/her being removed from the position.  For the reasons discussed above, we conclude only a limited amount of time should be expended on the supervision of three FWOs who are expected to complete “assignments independently with minimal supervision” as noted by their official PDs.  Furthermore, the appellant reported that one FWO transferred to a different organization during our adjudication of his classification appeal.  The agency confirmed their plan to fill this position, along with the previously vacant fourth position.  The two encumbered FWO positions are currently assigned to the Needles, California, duty station and are thus geographically separated from the appellant.  However, for the reasons discussed previously, we conclude the appellant would not spend the minimum amount of time supervising only three, and now two, FWOs to meet the GSSG coverage requirements.  Regardless, his current expenditure of time on supervisory work, as it is a transitory situation, does not represent the baseline percentage of supervisory work performed on a continuing basis when fully staffed.  However, the agency must verify the appellant’s position spends the requisite minimum amount of time for coverage by the GSSG when all positions are filled, or take appropriate steps to reclassify it as a nonsupervisory position if the organization’s vacancies are subsequently eliminated.  For our purpose of fully addressing the classification concerns of the appellant, we will assume his supervisory work will occupy at least 25 percent of his time on the administrative and technical direction of the four FWOs with some separated geographically from him, and we evaluated this work by application of the GSSG.

Since there are no titles specified for the GS-1801 series, the agency may construct a title, which must include a supervisory designation, consistent with guidance in the Introduction.

The appellant does not assert his personally performed work is grade controlling.  This work is properly evaluated by application of the grading criteria in the Job Family Position Classification Standard (JFS) for Administrative Work in the Inspection, Investigation, Enforcement, and Compliance Group, 1800.  We applied the GS-1800 JFS to the appellant’s enforcement and investigative work, confirmed such work is characteristic of the work performed by the FWO positions evaluated at the 9 grade level, and thus determined those duties and responsibilities are graded no higher than his supervisory work.  Because his personally performed work is neither grade controlling nor does it serve as the basis for his classification appeal rationale, we will not discuss the work further.

Grade determination

The GSSG is used to determine the grade of supervisory positions in grades GS-5 through GS-15.  The GSSG employs a factor-point evaluation method that assesses six factors common to all supervisory positions.  To grade a position, each factor is evaluated by comparing the position to the factor-level description for that factor and crediting the points designated for the highest factor level which is fully met, in accordance with the instructions specific to the factor being evaluated.  The total points assessed under all factors are then converted to a grade by using the grade conversion table in the GSSG.

The agency evaluated the appellant’s supervisory work at the GS-11 level by application of the grade-level criteria in the GSSG.  The appellant only disagrees with the agency’s evaluation of Factors 1 and 6.  We reviewed the agency’s determination for Factors 2, 3, and 5, concur, and have credited the position accordingly.  Our evaluation will focus on the remaining factors.

Factor 1, Program Scope and Effect

This factor assesses the general complexity, breadth, and impact of the program areas and work directed, including its organizational and geographic coverage.  It also assesses the impact of the work both within and outside the immediate organization.  To credit a particular factor level, the criteria for both scope and effect must be met.  Each successively higher factor-level description represents additional demands beyond those expressed at the next lower level.

In evaluating the population affected under this factor, we may only consider the total population serviced directly and significantly by a program.  We cannot count the total population in the geographic area potentially covered by a program.

           Scope

At Level 1-2, the program segment or work directed is administrative, technical, complex clerical, or comparable in nature.  The functions, activities, or services provided have limited geographic coverage and support most of the activities comprising a typical agency field office, an area office, a small to medium military installation, or comparable activities within agency program segments.

At Level 1-3, the position directs a program segment that performs technical, administrative, protective, investigative, or professional work.  The program segment and work directed typically have coverage which encompasses a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States; or, when most of an area’s taxpayers or businesses are covered, coverage comparable to a small city.  Providing complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multi-mission military installation also falls at this level.

The appellant’s position meets Level 1-2.  By directing the law enforcement activities performed by the FWOs, his work supports a population comprised primarily of visitors to the Complex’s recreational areas, members of the surrounding community, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Complex.  His oversight of law enforcement activities at the Complex, with its two wildlife refuges, is comparable to the limited geographic coverage described at Level 1-2.  Furthermore, the appellant’s position is equivalent to the illustration provided in the GSSG for Level 1-2 of a position directing protective or similar services in support of a typical national park and providing services directly or significantly impacting other functions and activities throughout the organization and/or a small population of visitors or users.

The appellant seeks to credit his position at Level 1-3, citing his direction of a program performing protective and investigative work significantly affecting the general public for a small region or several States.  That his work involves protective and investigative work would appear on the surface to meet Level 1-3.  Scope, however, considers the nature of services provided, i.e., the population directly and significantly serviced by a program and not the total population serviced even if it has provided some degree of service at some point in time.  The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-3 in that the population directly and significantly serviced by the program under his direction and control is not equivalent to a major metropolitan area, a State, or a small region of several States.  His enforcement and investigative work affects major aspects of the operations at the Complex and is often conducted in coordination and cooperation with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.  Although the Complex is located in parts of Arizona and California with an estimated three million visitors annually, the appellant’s work supporting the agency’s visitor and resource protection mission is not as broad or complex as envisioned at Level 1-3.  His work serves the public and land welfare through law enforcement activities and functions, but he does not provide direct services as intended at Level 1-3 to most of the three million visitors to the Complex, and thus his work does not constitute a major and direct effect.  His work, for example, is not comparable to providing services directly to taxpayers and businesses such as by the Internal Revenue Service under the conditions described at Level 1-3.  Unlike Level 1-3, the appellant does not provide complex administrative or technical or professional services directly affecting a large or complex multimission installation or the equivalent as defined by the GSSG (i.e., a total serviced employee-equivalent population exceeding 4,000 personnel engaged in a variety of serviced functions).

Scope is evaluated at Level 1-2.

          Effect

At Level 1-2, the services or products support and significantly affect installation level, area office level, or field office operations and objectives, or comparable program segments; or provide services to a moderate, local or limited population of clients or users comparable to a major portion of a small city or rural county.

At Level 1-3, activities, functions, or services accomplished directly and significantly impact a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the operations of outside interests (e.g., a segment of a regulated industry), or the general public.  At the field activity level (involving large, complex, multimission organizations and/or very large serviced populations), the work directly involves or substantially impacts the provision of essential support operations to numerous, varied, and complex technical, professional, and administrative functions.

The appellant’s position meets Level 1-2.  As at this level, his work significantly affects law enforcement operations, functions, and activities at the Complex.  His program provides enforcement, investigative, and other law enforcement services to a moderate, local, or limited population of visitors with the impact described at Level 1-2.

The appellant’s position does not meet Level 1-3, in that the impact of his law enforcement work is limited to the operations of the Complex and thus does not significantly affect a wide range of agency activities, the work of other agencies, or the actual operations of outside interests such as segments of an entire industry.  His position, performing an ancillary law enforcement function at the Complex, also does not involve the diversity and scale of functions expected at Level 1-3 where work significantly impacts operations carrying out “numerous, varied, and complex” technical, professional, and administrative activities such as that carried out at a large military installation with large-scale and diverse technical functions (e.g., contracting for depot-level repair and overhaul of complex weapons systems).

Effect is evaluated at Level 1-2.

Since both Scope and Effect are credited at Level 1-2, 350 points are assigned.

Factor 4, Personal Contacts

This is a two-part factor assessing the nature and purpose of personal contacts related to supervisory and managerial responsibilities.  The nature of contacts, credited under subfactor 4A, and the purpose of those contacts, credited under subfactor 4B, must be based on the same contacts.

          Subfactor 4A:  Nature of Contacts

This subfactor covers the organizational relationships, authority or influence level, setting, and difficulty of preparation associated with the personal contacts.  To be credited, the level of contacts must contribute to the successful performance of the work, be a recurring requirement, have a demonstrable impact on the difficulty and responsibility of the position, and require direct contact.

The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 4A-3, but we find his position meets Level 4A-2 instead.  At Level 4A-2, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following: (1) members of the business community or the general public; (2) higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units and activities throughout the field activity, installation, command (below major command level), or major organization level of the agency; (3) representatives of local public interest groups; (4) case workers in Congressional district offices; (5) technical or operating level employees of State and local Governments; and (6) reporters for local and other limited media outlets reaching a small, general population.  Contacts may be informal, occur in conferences and meetings, or take place through telephone, televised, radio, or similar contacts, and sometimes require nonroutine or special preparation. 

Similar to Level 4A-2, the appellant has frequent contact with higher ranking managers, supervisors, and staff of program, administrative, and other work units at the Complex and region; members of the general public and business community; and counterparts at the local, State, or Federal level.  His contacts require special preparation in order to explain operations, problems, and available options.

The appellant’s contacts do not meet Level 4A-3.  At Level 4A-3, frequent contacts are comparable to any of the following:  (1) high ranking military or civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at bureau and major organization levels of the agency; with agency headquarters administrative support staff; or with comparable personnel in other Federal agencies; (2) key staff of public interest groups (usually in formal briefings) with significant political influence or media coverage; (3) journalists representing influential city or county newspapers or comparable radio or television coverage; (4) Congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants below staff director or chief counsel levels; (5) contracting officials and high level technical staff of large industrial firms; and (6) local officers of regional or national trade associations, public action groups, or professional organizations; and/or State and local Government managers doing business with the agency.  Contacts include those which take place in meetings and conferences and unplanned contacts for which the employee is designated as a contact point by higher management.  They often require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date technical familiarity with complex subject matter.

In contrast to Level 4A-3, the appellant’s frequent contacts are with the Federal Wildlife Zone Officer, administrative officer, and other technical and administrative staff at the Complex or region, as well as with his counterparts at the local, State, and Federal level.  He occasionally participates in a multi-agency group or taskforce to discuss mutual issues of concern.  Unlike Level 4A-3, the appellant’s contacts are not frequently with high ranking civilian managers, supervisors, and technical staff at the bureau and major organization levels of the agency, with agency headquarters administrative support staff, or comparable personnel at other Federal agencies.  He also does not have frequent contact with politically influential public interest groups, journalists, Congressional committee and subcommittee staff assistants, contracting officials, or local officers of regional or national trade associations.  In addition, his contacts do not regularly require extensive preparation of briefing materials or up-to-date familiarity with complex subject matters as described at Level 4A-3.

Level 4A-2 is credited for 50 points.

Subfactor 4B:  Purpose of Contacts

This subfactor covers the purpose of the personal contacts credited in Subfactor 4A, including the advisory, representational, negotiating, and commitment making responsibilities related to supervision and management.

The agency credited the appellant’s position at Level 4B-3, but we find his position meets Level 4B-2 instead.  At Level 4B-2, the purpose of contacts is to ensure that information provided to outside parties is accurate and consistent; to plan and coordinate the work directed with that of others outside the subordinate organization; and/or to resolve differences of opinion among managers, supervisors, employees, contractors, or others.  Similar to Level 4B-2, the purpose of the appellant’s contacts is primarily to present information, as well as to obtain agreement if back-up or coverage for FWOs is required and to reconcile conflicting views concerning specific law enforcement matters with a variety of local, State, and Federal agencies.

The purpose of the appellant’s contacts does not meet Level 4B-3.  At Level 4B-3, the purpose of contacts is to justify, defend, or negotiate in representing the project, program segment(s), or organization unit(s) directed, in obtaining or committing resources, and in gaining compliance with established policies, regulations, or contracts.  All three of the conditions listed under Level 4B-3 must be present in a position to award credit for this level.  Additionally, contacts at this level usually involve active participation in conferences, meetings, hearings, or presentations involving problems or issues of considerable consequence or importance to the program or program segment(s) managed.  This level requires justifying, defending, or negotiating on behalf of the organization, with the supervisor having the requisite control over resources and the authority necessary to gain support and compliance with established policies of the organization. 

In contrast to Level 4B-3, the appellant does not have responsibility and authority to obtain or commit resources for the law enforcement program at the Complex.  Since this responsibility resides with the Complex Manager, the appellant’s position does not meet the full intent of Level 4B-3.  He occasionally attends conferences or meetings concerning significant issues, but the frequency of such meetings, in addition to the authority to commit resources as required for crediting Level 4B-3, are not present in his position.

Level 4B-2 is credited for 75 points.

Factor 6, Other Conditions

This factor measures the extent to which various conditions contribute to the difficulty and complexity of carrying out supervisory duties, authorities, and responsibilities.  If the level selected under this factor is 6-1, 6-2, or 6-3, and if three or more of the eight Special Situations described are met, the original level selected is increased by one level.  If the level selected is 6-4, 6-5, or 6-6, the Special Situations do not apply and the original level selected is credited.

The appellant agrees with the agency’s crediting of his position at Level 6-3a, where supervision and oversight requires coordination, integration, or consolidation of administrative, technical, or complex technician or other support work comparable to GS-9 or 10.  The work directed requires the coordination and integration of work efforts, ensuring consistency of product, service, interpretation, or advice; conformance with the output of other units, with formal standards or agency policy.  After careful review of the record, we agree the appellant’s supervisory work requires coordination, integration, and consolidation of work comparable to the GS-9 grade level as described at Level 6-3a.

The appellant seeks to credit his position with four (of the eight) special situations:  shift operations, physical dispersion, special staffing situations, and special hazard and safety conditions.  We found the remaining special conditions (i.e., variety of work, fluctuating workforce or constantly changing deadlines, impact of specialized programs, and changing technology) inapplicable to the appellant’s position, and we will therefore not address those conditions.

Shift Operations.  This situation is credited when the position supervises an operation carried out on at least two fully staffed shifts.

The Complex is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with the exception of restricted hours set for areas designated for improvement.  However, law enforcement coverage is not provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  FWO schedules are instead arranged to provide as much coverage as possible.  Eight-hour shifts for FWOs vary; for example, a weekday schedule may be set from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.  Another weekday schedule may be set from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.  On this shift, three FWOs would be available from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. so that back-up would be available if needed during the peak period.  Shifts are occasionally scheduled past midnight to deter trespassing and other illegal activities.  On weekends, the FWOs may work midday from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Schedules usually change monthly to either be rotated or altered depending on the demands of the Complex.  For example, a shift may start at 5:30 a.m. or earlier to cover waterfowl hunting season in the fall.  The Complex is busiest during the summer for water and other recreational activities.  In general, FWOs are usually involved in the water patrol of the Colorado River from April to October and in land patrol from October to March.

Usually more than one shift is scheduled daily for FWOs to provide the Complex with as much law enforcement coverage as possible.  Regardless, the appellant’s shift often overlaps the shifts of his subordinate FWOs.  As a result of overlapping shifts, his supervisory work does not involve the same difficulty or urgency as supervisors with consecutive, rather than concurrent, shifts for assuring work is passed off from one shift to another, debriefing the incoming shift on what transpired during the previous shift, and relaying instructions to the next shift including problems encountered and actions taken.  More importantly, we determined the appellant’s position spends the minimum amount of time supervising the four FWOs expected to be assigned to his position, thus only minimally meeting the GSSG coverage requirements.  We conclude his position is not creditable with supervising an operation with at least two fully staffed shifts as the presence of a few FWOs on shifts different from his own is not characteristic of the fully staffed shifts envisioned for crediting of this condition.

Physical Dispersion.  This situation is credited when a substantial portion of the workload for which the supervisor is responsible is regularly carried out at one or more locations that are physically removed from the main unit, under conditions that make day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.

The duty station of two of the appellant’s subordinate FWOs is currently identified as Needles, California, which is located 60 miles away from his duty station in Parker, Arizona.  The Complex Manager states that, when fully staffed with four FWOs, three employees are projected to be assigned to the California duty station and one to the Arizona duty station.  Regardless of duty station, all four FWOs are responsible for detecting, investigating, apprehending, detaining, arresting, and/or issuing citations.  To perform such work, the FWOs are actively patrolling, investigating, and performing other law enforcement activities in and around the Complex which covers approximately 44,000 acres including 30 miles of the Colorado River and 300 miles of shoreline between Arizona and California.  Considering the minimal law enforcement staff covering a vast area attracting approximately three million visitors annually, FWOs are inherently dispersed with their exact locations varying widely.

The appellant’s supervisory work requires making staffing decisions, depending on availability and proximity of the FWOs, when they receive leads, complaints, or when situations call for a back-up.  Such decisions must be made quickly as the potential for violence surfaces when individuals are arrested, detained, or issued citations and warnings.  The appellant estimates he and the FWOs made or issued 11 arrests, 150 citations, and 200 warnings in 2015.  We conclude the physical dispersion of his subordinate employees complicates his ability to make staff assignments, coordinate tasks, evaluate work, and perform other day-to-day supervisory responsibilities.  Interviews also show the appellant is not always able to communicate readily with his subordinate employees.  The FWOs drive vehicles with radios and are issued cell phones, but communication between the appellant and his staff is nonetheless unreliable as radio repeaters are far apart and cell phone towers are limited.  Thus, this situation is credited to his position since the physical dispersion inherent to the FWO positions makes day-to-day supervision difficult to administer.

Special Staffing Situations.  This situation is credited when (1) a substantial portion of the workforce is regularly involved in special employment programs or in similar situations which require involvement with employee representatives to resolve difficult or complex human resources management issues and problems; (2) requirements for counseling and motivation activities are regular and recurring; and (3) job assignments, work tasks, working conditions, and/or training must be tailored to fit the specific circumstances.  All three conditions must be present for this situation to be credited.

The appellant believes his position warrants crediting of this special situation, citing in particular the performance and conduct issues of a subordinate employee.  He issued letters of warning and a performance improvement plan in the past year, and he is regularly involved with seeking advice from human resources staff and counseling employees.  Such performance and conduct issues are temporary with either the subordinate employee making appropriate adjustments or his/her being removed from the position.  In contrast, this special situation is credited when the requirements for counseling and motivation activities and the resolution of difficult or complex human resources management issues are inherent to the workforce supervised and thus constitute a regular and recurring demand placed on the supervisor’s position; for example, when the subordinate workforce is composed of prisoners or individuals participating in a special employment program.  Since the appellant’s position does not meet all three criteria, no credit is given for this special situation.

Special Hazard and Safety Conditions.  This situation is credited when the supervisory position is regularly made more difficult by the need to make provisions for significant or hazardous conditions occurring during performance of the work of the organization.

The appellant’s position is responsible for significant law enforcement functions which regularly complicate his supervisory responsibilities with the need to make provisions for substantial hazardous conditions occurring during the performance of the FWOs’ work.  In addition to maintaining the inventory of protective gear, he ensures the FWOs comply with applicable safety directives and are current with firearms, taser, and other required training; complete safety and physical tests; and maintain motorboat, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, all-terrain vehicle, and other required certifications.  The appellant supervises a staff composed entirely of FWOs who are subject to hazardous conditions typical of law enforcement operations when performing their work.  The FWO PDs credit the position with Level 9-3 for Work Environment.  This factor-level descriptor states the incumbent is frequently exposed to high-risk and potentially dangerous law enforcement and emergency situations requiring use of a wide range of personal protective gear.  Therefore, this situation is credited since the work environment of the FWOs reflects the need to make provisions for “significant unsafe or hazardous conditions.”

Since the appellant’s position meets two instead of four special conditions, no additional level is credited.  Therefore, Level 6-3a is credited for 975 points.

Summary
Factor	Level	Points
1.  Program Scope and Effect	1-2	350
2.  Organizational Setting	2-1	100
3.  Supervisory & Managerial Authority Exercised	3-2c	450
4.  Personal Contacts
A.  Nature of Contacts	4A-2	50
B.  Purpose of Contacts	4B-2	75
5.  Difficulty of Typical Work Directed	5-5	650
6.  Other Conditions	6-3a	975
Total		2,650

The total of 2,650 points falls within the GS-11 range (2,355-2,750) on the grade conversion table provided in the GSSG.

Decision

The appellant’s position is properly classified as GS-1801-11.  The title is at the agency’s discretion with a “Supervisory” prefix.

Back to Top