Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Job Grading Appeal Decision
Under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code

---

Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


10/26/2023

---

Date

Finality of Decision

As provided in section S7-8 of the Federal Wage System (FWS) Appropriated Fund Operating Manual, this decision constitutes a certificate that is binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officers of the Government. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions specified in section 532.705(f) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (address provided in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section H).

Since this decision changes the grading (i.e., title) of the appealed job, it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the first pay period after the 60^th day from the date [as determined under 5 CFR 532.703 (b)(10)] the appellant filed the appeal with the agency [5 CFR 532.705(d)]. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the correct job description (JD) and a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. The report must be submitted within 30 days of the date of this decision to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office.

Introduction

The appellant’s job is currently graded as Infrastructure Supervisor, WS-4701-14, but he believes it should be graded at the WS-16 level. His job (standard JD number 9H-9T3111) is assigned to the Infrastructure Systems Element (ISE), Operations Flight, 99^th Civil Engineering Squadron, 99^th Mission Support Group, 99^th Air Base Wing, U. S. Department of the Air Force (AF), at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5346(c) of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

To support the upgrading of his job, the appellant identifies other AF jobs with the same title but higher grades. He asserts his job was not graded properly and that those other jobs have fewer responsibilities because they support a smaller number of organizations and employees. By law, job grading decisions must be based solely upon a comparison between the actual duties and responsibilities of the job and appropriate job grading standards (JGSs) (5 U.S.C. 5346). Therefore, we may not compare the appellant’s job to other jobs as a basis for deciding his appeal. In adjudicating this appeal, our only concern is to make an independent decision on the proper grading of the job in question. Therefore, we have considered the appellant’s statements only insofar as they are relevant to making a comparison to the appropriate JGSs and guidelines.

The AF has primary responsibility for ensuring job grading consistency at its subordinate organizations. If the appellant believes his job is graded inconsistently with others, he may pursue this matter by writing to the human resources office of his agency’s headquarters. He should specify the precise organizational location, occupational code, title, grade, and responsibilities of the jobs in question. The agency should explain to him the differences between his job and the others or grade those jobs in accordance with this appeal decision.

Job information

Both the appellant and his supervisor have certified to the accuracy of the appellant’s JD (Air Force Standard Core Personnel Document number 9H-9T3111). As the Infrastructure Supervisor, the appellant oversees the maintenance and repair of the facilities and infrastructure performed by the following ISE shops. The Pest Management Shop performs work such as maintaining vegetation to prevent overgrowth in/around the flight line and inspecting food service areas for evidence of and eradication of rodents and insects. The Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, and Controls (HVAC/R & Controls) Shop performs work such as troubleshooting malfunctioning air conditioning units to determine why a room is hot and replacing pumps and pipes in boilers and chillers as part of the scheduled system maintenance. The Water, Fuels, Systems Maintenance (WFSM) Shop performs work such as unclogging backed up sewer lines and replacing aging/broken hot water heaters. The ISE serves several organizations including the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center, 57^th Wing, 99^th Air Base Wing, 53^rd Wing, 505^th Command and Control Wing, 350^th Spectrum Warfare Wing, 926^th Wing, 355^th Fighter Wing, Nevada Test and Training Range, 800^th Red Horse Group, 82^nd Training Wing, and 982^nd Training Group.

As a second-level supervisor, the appellant sets overall goals, carries out program assignments, resolves conflicts that arise, coordinates work with others, and interprets policies on his own initiative. In addition, he is responsible for workload production, equipment and supplies, and safety, control, and accountability procedures. The appellant’s duties include, but are not limited to, ensuring equipment, supplies, and materials are available and operational to meet ISE needs; providing recommended plans of action for deficiencies identified during internal reviews and work site visits; preparing requests for funds involving shop operations; monitoring work plans developed by shop supervisors; ensuring changes in procedures and operations are implemented to simplify operations or improve effectiveness and accident prevention; ensuring occupational health standards are established at the shops; and evaluating subordinate civilian shop workers.

The appellant serves as the first-level supervisor for the civilian shop supervisor jobs (i.e., one Pest Control Supervisor, WS-5026-09, one HVAC Supervisor, WS-5301-11, and one Plumber (Water Treatment Operator) Supervisor, WS-4206-10) and the active-duty military shop chief (shop chief) jobs (i.e., one E6 Technical Sergeant in the Pest Management Shop, one E7 Master Sergeant in the HVAC/R & Controls Shop, and two E7 Master Sergeants in the WFSM Shop). The appellant assures management objectives are met, evaluates the shop supervisors/chiefs, determines training needs for shop workers, takes disciplinary measures, and makes decisions on problems presented by the shop supervisors/chiefs.

Each shop supervisor is responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the civilian workers and shop operations including assigning work, ensuring completed work meets established standards, controlling civilian worker attendance, counseling civilian workers on performance- and conduct-related issues, taking civilian disciplinary actions when necessary, and identifying additional training needs for all shop workers. Each shop chief serves as a Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge or section chief, working with and supporting the shop supervisors. Their responsibilities include managing, overseeing, evaluating, counselling, disciplining, and monitoring the work of the lower-graded active-duty military in his or her assigned shop.

The appellant’s official JD and other material of record furnish more information about his duties and responsibilities and how they are performed. We find the major duties as described in his JD are adequate for job grading purposes and have incorporate it by reference into this decision. To help decide this appeal, we conducted separate telephone interviews with the appellant and his first-level supervisor. In reaching our job grading appeal decision, we carefully considered all information gained from these interviews, as well as the written information furnished by the appellant and his agency.

Occupational code, title, and standard determination

The occupational code of a supervisory job is normally the same as the code for the kind of work that is supervised. When work of more than one occupation is supervised, the occupational code of a supervisory job is the same as the code of the occupation which best reflects the overall nature of the work operations supervised and/or is the most important for recruitment, selection, placement, and other personnel purposes. Usually, but not always, this is the occupational code appropriate for the highest level of nonsupervisory work supervised. If no single occupation predominates, the 01 code of the most appropriate job family, or in some instances a job code that includes multiple trades and craft occupations, is used.

The appellant supervises the following mix of occupations, Plumbing, WG-4206; Fuel Distribution System Mechanic, WG-4255; Pest Controlling, WG-5026; General Industrial Equipment Maintenance, WG-5301; and Water Treatment Plant Operating, WG-5409, none of which predominates.

The General Maintenance and Operations Work Family, 4700, includes occupations: (1) consisting of various combinations of work involving constructing, maintaining, and repairing buildings, roads, grounds, and related facilities; manufacturing, modifying, and repairing items or apparatus made from a variety of materials or types of components; or repairing and operating equipment or utilities; and (2) requiring the application of a variety of trade practices associated with occupations in more than one job family (unless otherwise indicated), and the performance of the highest level of work in at least two of the trades involved. Like jobs in the 4700 job family, the appellant oversees a wide range of maintenance and repair work in the ISE performed in occupations in more than one job family with the highest level of work performed in at least two of the trades involved. Thus, we concur with the agency on its assignment of the 4701 occupational code.

The agency titled the appellant’s job as Infrastructure Supervisor. However, according to the Introduction to the FWS Job Grading System, Section III(B)(3), the title of a broad and general job assigned to the “01” code usually is the job family title. Jobs responsible for the technical and administrative supervision of trades and labor work are graded by the OPM Federal Wage System (FWS) Job Grading Standard (JGS) for Supervisors when such responsibility is, like the appellants’s, a regular and recurring part of the job and exercised on a substantially full-time and continuing basis. Since his job fully meets the coverage requirements for titling by use of the FWS JGS for Supervisors, the suffix “Supervisor” is added to the job title. The appropriate job title is General Maintenance and Operations Supervisor.

Grade determination

To grade the appellant’s job, we have applied the grading criteria in the FWS JGS for Supervisors. The grading plan for FWS supervisors consists of three factors: (1) Nature of Supervisory Responsibility; (2) Level of Work Supervised; and (3) Scope of Work Operations Supervised.

Evaluation using the FWS JGS for Supervisors

Factor 1, Nature of Supervisory Responsibility

This factor considers the nature of the supervisory duties performed, and the type and degree of responsibility for control over the work supervised. The factor describes four basic supervisory situations. These, in sequence, depict successively higher levels of supervisory responsibility and authority for scheduling work operations, planning use of resources (i.e., subordinate workers, equipment, facilities, materials, and tools) to accomplish scheduled or unscheduled work, directing subordinates in performing work assignments, and carrying out administrative duties.

The agency credited the appellant’s job at Situation #3, which describes supervisors who are responsible for the overall direction and coordination of subordinate work activities and functions. Supervisors in Situation #3 differ from supervisors in Situations 1 and 2 primarily in that the work operations are of such scope, volume, and complexity that they are (1) carried out by subordinate supervisors in two or more separate organizational segments or groups, and (2) controlled through one or more levels of supervision. In addition to the duties described in Situation #2, supervisors in Situation #3 perform the following:

Planning

• Plan on a quarterly or longer basis the overall use of subordinate personnel and other resources under their control;
• Determine resource requirements, materials, and the number of subordinates and the types of skill necessary to accomplish long-range work schedules;
• Allocate resources and distribute work to organizational segments or groups under their control;
• Analyze work plans developed by subordinate supervisors and monitor the status of their work in relation to the overall schedule requirements, including unanticipated or emergency requirements;
• Obtain prior approval of changes that would modify or deviate overall work schedules or affect work operations controlled by supervisors not under their control; and
• Provide information and advice to higher level supervisors, management officials, and staff organizations on feasibility of work assignments as scheduled, budget estimates, and workload data to assist in developing or reviewing proposed long-range schedules and work requirements, and may participate with superiors in planning conferences and meetings.

Work Direction

• Assign and explain work requirements and operating instructions to subordinate supervisors and set deadlines and establish the sequence of work operations to be followed;
• Maintain balanced workloads by shifting assignments, workers, and other resources under their control to achieve the most effective work operations;
• Review and analyze work accomplishments, cost, and utilization of subordinates to evaluate work progress, control costs, and anticipate and avoid possible problems by recommending corrective action to superiors;
• Participate with management officials and/or engineering personnel to develop qualitative and/or quantitative work standards;
• Evaluate work operations and review completed work and inspection reports to assure that standards are met; and
• Coordinate work operations with the supervisors of other organizations and functions.

Administrative

• Assure that subordinate supervisors effectively carry out policies to achieve management objectives;
• Recommend promotion or reassignment of subordinate supervisors, make formal appraisals of their performance, and determine their training needs;
• Schedule leave of subordinate supervisors, review personnel actions and performance appraisals initiated by them, and act on personnel problems referred by subordinate supervisors, and maintain administrative records; and
• Serve as a management representative at hearings, meetings, and negotiations involving labor management relations.

The appellant’s job meets Situation #3. Because the appellant is responsible for the ISE’s three shops, the appellant performs the planning, work direction, and administration elements described under Situation #2 (see duties on pages 9 and 10 of the JGS for Supervisors) and Situation #3. He performs the Planning elements under Situation #3 such as planning on a quarterly or longer basis the use of subordinate personnel and other resources. He also determines resource requirements, materials, and the number of subordinates and the types of skill necessary to accomplish work schedules. For example, the appellant meets with his supervisor to review the approved projects that will be assigned to the shops. They discuss issues including project priority and manning requirements needed to meet prescribed deadlines. Each shop supervisor/chief(s) establishes their shop work plan. The appellant reviews each plan and meets weekly with each shop supervisor to review work progress (e.g., are there enough workers on the project with the needed skills, do the workers have the necessary equipment, and will the project be completed on time if the majority of the shop active-duty military workers are deployed). The shop supervisors and/or chiefs receive taskers (e.g., a toilet is not flushing, an office ventilation system is not circulating and bringing in outside air, or an air conditioning system is blowing out hot air) daily that are submitted by their serviced organizations through the NexGen system. The appellant ensures his shop supervisors/chiefs send workers to diagnose and repair the problems in a timely manner. If replacement parts are needed, he ensures the requests are submitted to his supervisor for approval and purchase. Like Situation #3 he analyzes work plans developed by subordinate supervisors and monitors the status of their work in relation to the overall schedules. The appellant provides information and advice to management officials on the feasibility of work assignments. For example, he explained to the Operations Flight and the 99^th Civil Engineering Squadron Commanders the technical reasons why alternative materials for stainless steel ducting could not be used in timely repairing a boiler plant failure. The required ducting was not readily available due to pandemic-related supply shortage issues.

Regarding the Work Direction elements, the appellant assigns new work projects and deadlines to the shop supervisors/chiefs so they can establish their priorities. He explains work requirements, operating instructions, or work sequence if the project is not moving forward in the right direction or is taking too long to complete (e.g., do the workers have the needed tools and equipment). The appellant re-prioritizes projects to meet the needs and/or concerns of management officials. He maintains balanced workloads within the shops by discussing with his subordinate supervisors/chiefs the available workers, tools, and equipment and shifts resources as needed to achieve the most effective work operations. If the appellant’s supervisor or management officials are concerned there are problems with projects, he visits the shop work site to analyze the situation and discuss the issues with the shop supervisor/chief before making corrections or providing recommendations through his supervisor to management officials. He evaluates the work operations for major funded work projects (e.g., aircraft fuel system repair and major water line break repair) to validate the work meets local, State, and Federal codes. The appellant works with management officials, Engineering Flight personnel, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain and improve Nellis AFB’s infrastructure. For example, the appellant reviewed and provided comments on the design and scope of work for a project to expand the existing water system. He ensured Environmental Protection Agency, State, and local codes were met so the drinking water remains safe. Like Situation #3, he reviews and analyzes work accomplishments and evaluates work in progress. As a second-level supervisor he reviews the overall completion of work to ensure standards are met and, as needed, coordinates the ISE work operations with supervisors of other organizations.

Regarding the Administrative elements, the appellant assures his subordinate shop supervisors/ chiefs effectively carry out ISE priorities to achieve management objectives. He has day-to-day interactions with the supervisors/chiefs to discuss any issues they have with completing projects or taskers. As the immediate supervisor of the subordinate supervisors/chiefs, he makes formal appraisals of their work performance, completes award nominations, initiates recommendations for their promotion and reassignment, and sets performance standards. The appellant determines the training needs of all subordinate supervisors/chiefs and workers and submits them for his supervisor’s approval. He establishes the leave schedule for the subordinate supervisors/chiefs. The appellant reviews personnel actions (e.g., promotions and reassignments) and performance appraisals initiated by the subordinate supervisors for the civilian workers. When necessary, he resolves issues elevated to him from the subordinate supervisors, including performance or conduct-related issues of subordinate civilian workers. In addition, the appellant maintains administrative records, e.g., award nominations, performance appraisals, and conduct-related actions such as Letters of Reprimand or Letters of Proposed Suspension.

In Situation #4, supervisors differ from supervisors in Situation #3 in the nature of their participation with other management officials in (1) the planning and establishment of long-range work requirements and schedules, (2) the authority deriving from their responsibilities as the highest level “blue-collar”subject matter expert for work accomplished under their direction, and (3) the work activities and functions under their direction are typically controlled through two or more levels of supervision. In addition to the duties described in Situation #3, supervisors in Situation #4 perform the following:

Planning

• Provide direct input or participate in meetings and/or conferences with engineering, production control, and other personnel involving the initial analysis of long-range work requirements (typically, 6 months or longer in advance of the beginning of actual work operations);
• Review the immediate and long-range requirements of the organizational segments and groups supervised based on workload forecasts, and develop, for approval by their superiors, plans for meeting long-range resource requirements;
• Plan the allocation of resources and the distribution of work to subordinate supervisors, and determine the internal plan to be followed by the subordinate supervisors in applying those resources to accomplish work operations;
• Evaluate resources required to accomplish the proposed work “packages” or program(s) in relation to the resources committed to ongoing and previously scheduled work operations and recommend changes to superiors concerning previouslyplanned work schedules; and
• Participate fully with higher level management officials and staff organizations in studying and developing recommendations concerning changes in specifications requirements, work techniques, and standards; revision of organizational structures, responsibilities, and relationships; and improvement or modernization of equipment, facility layout, and workflow.

Work Direction

The work direction in Situation #4 is the same as that described in Situation #3.

Administration

• Develop and establish internal procedures (e.g., meetings, content, and timing of reports) to be followed by subordinate supervisors to assure effective control and direction of work activities, organizations, and personnel supervised; and
• Identify long-range training needs for all levels of subordinate supervisors and workers and submit justification and funding requests to superiors and arrange for the accomplish of the training.

Situation #4 is not met. We find the appellant’s situation characteristic of Situation #3, which describes supervisors responsible for the overall direction and coordination of subordinate work activities and functions of an organization such as the ISE. His situation does not meet Situation #4, which describes supervisors participating with other management officials in planning and establishing long-range work requirements and schedules, using authority derived from responsibilities as the highest level “blue-collar” subject matter expert for work directed, and having work functions controlled through two or more levels of supervision. Instead, the appellant is responsible for the overall direction and coordination of the ISE shops’ work functions, including discussing project development with Engineering Flight personnel. Furthermore, he does not perform all planning elements described under Situation #4. For instance, the appellant does not have responsibility for reviewing the immediate and long-range requirements of the shops supervised based on workload forecasts and developing plans for meeting long-range resource requirements or determining the internal plan subordinate supervisors follow in applying resources to accomplish work operations. He does not evaluate resources required to accomplish proposed work projects in relation to the resources committed to ongoing and previously scheduled work operations and recommend changes to superiors concerning previously planned work schedules. Unlike Situation #4, the appellant does not participate fully with higher-level management officials and staff organizations in studying and developing recommendations concerning changes in specifications requirements, work techniques, and standards or revision of organizational structures, responsibilities, and relationships; or improvements.

Regarding the Administration element, Situation #4 is not met. Unlike this situation, the appellant does not develop and establish internal procedures, but regularly monitors his subordinate shop supervisors/ chiefs to ensure they effectively meet management objectives. To do so he has day-to-day interactions with them to discuss any issues they have with completing projects or taskers. He also determines the immediate training needs of all subordinate supervisors/chiefs and workers.

The appellant states his job should be credited at Situation #4 and specifically mentions meeting two of the supervisory responsibilities. He believes he is the highest level blue-collar subject matter expert (SME) for the work accomplished under his direction in the Pest Management, HVAC/R & Controls, and WFSM Shops. The appellant is a SME in HVAC, plumbing, pipefitting, and boiler plant operations. However, while he has some knowledge in the field of pest management, our fact-finding disclosed that the SME is the shop supervisor. Thus, the appellant lacks SME level knowledge for all the work accomplished in the shops. In addition, the appellant believes the work activities and functions under his direction are controlled through two levels of supervision. He states he cannot reorganize so the military shop chiefs are supervised/rated by the appellant because it is not permitted in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, which includes a civilian rater for enlisted military members between the rank of Master Sergeant (E7) and Chief Master Sergeant (E9) must be graded GS-11 or higher and no equivalent FWS grade is provided. Consequently, the supervision of the military personnel performed by the military shop chiefs cannot be officially considered another level of supervision within ISE. Regarding this issue, the appellant requests we consider the mitigating circumstance in the AFI preventing him from reorganizing and crediting his job at Situation #4. The FWS JGS for Supervisors does not include language allowing users to consider mitigating circumstances when crediting factor levels to jobs. The record shows the shop supervisor/chief jobs have their own responsibilities, but the appellant serves as their immediate supervisor and initial rater. Thus, work activities and functions under the appellant’s direction are controlled through a single level of supervision. In addition, as previously discussed his job responsibilities do not meet the full intent of the planning and administration elements described under Situation #4. Therefore, we credit Factor 1 with Situation #3.

Factor 2, Level of Work Supervised

This factor concerns the level and complexity of the work operations supervised, and their effect on the difficulty and responsibility of the supervisor’s job. All substantive work for which the supervisor is technically accountable is considered. Excluded from consideration is support or facilitating work, work that is graded based upon supervisory or leader standards, work that is graded higher than normal because of extroadinary independence from supervision, and work personally performed by the supervisor.

To determine the level of nonsupervisory work to be credited under this factor, as indicated in steps 1 and 2 below, consider all substantive work, whether under the direct or indirect supervision of the job being graded, for which the supervisor is technically accountable.

Step 1. Identify the occupation (or various occupations) directly involved in accomplishing the work assignments and projects which reflect the main purpose or mission of the work operations for which the supervisor is accountable.

Step 2. Determine the grade of the highest-level nonsupervisory work accomplished by subordinates who, under normal job controls, perform the work of one or more of the occupations identified in step 1 above. In determining the grade level to be credited, care must be used to make certain that the grades of the subordinate jobs really reflect the level and complexity of the work operations supervised and their effect on the difficulty and responsibility of the supervisor’s job.

The appellant is responsible, through his subordinate shop supervisors/chiefs, for the technical oversight of the maintenance and repair of base facilities and infrastructure work performed in various occupations in the three shops. Workers perform plumbing services such as installing, modifying, and repairing sewage, water, and gas lines, water heaters, and pumps; fuel distribution equipment maintenance services such as maintaining and overhauling pumps, control valves, and meters, tanks, and pipelines; pest controlling services such as controlling and preventing insect, vertebrate, and plant pests through visual inspections or evidence of their prescence, and mixing and applying pesticides; general industrial equipment maintenance services such as maintaining, installing, and repairing air conditioning equipment, and heating and boiler plant equipment; and water treatment plant operating services such as operating water treatment facilities and plants to treat or pump water. Based on a careful review of the ISE’s occupations the highest-level nonsupervisory work accomplished is Grade-11 in the General Industrial Equipment Maintenance code, 5301.The work is performed in the HVAC/R & Controls Shop, which is a large element of the organization. The appellant states the highest level of nonsupervisory work accomplished is a wage leader (WL) job (i.e., WL-11), which performs nonsupervisory work and leader responsibilities. The FWS JGS for Leader jobs equates nonsupervisory work to performing non-leader duties. Because the FWS JGS for Supervisors states we can only consider nonsupervisory work accomplished by subordinate workers, we cannot credit a leader job. We thus credit the base level of work supervised at the Grade 11 level.

Factor 3, Scope of Work Operations Supervised

This factor considers the scope of the job’s supervisor responsibility in terms of: (1) the scope of the assigned work function and organizational authority; (2) the variety of functions the job is required to supervise; and (3) the physical dispersion, work coordination, and location of subordinate employees. This factor is divided into three subfactors, which are in turn subdivided into levels with points assigned to each level. An appropriate level is selected for each subfactor and the corresponding point values are totaled. The total points are then converted to specific levels under Factor 3 using the conversion chart at the end of the factor.

Subfactor A, Scope of Assigned Work Function and Organizational Authority

This subfactor measures the scope of assigned work function or mission, i.e., the purpose of the job in the organization, the extent and nature of the job’s authority in relation to the organizational assignment, and the importance of the job’s decisions. To determine the proper subfactor level for a job, careful judgment must be used to identify the actual supervisory authorities assigned to the job and how they are exercised.

At Level A-3, supervisors have second level or higher supervisory and decision authority for work functions or a portion of a mission requirement (e.g., a specific program in a designated geographic location or a specific function). The scope of the mission or work functions at this level typically requires supervisors to utilize several subordinate supervisors and leaders through structured working relationships among subordinate groups of employees, formal procedures for scheduling and assigning work and work results, and the issuance of instructions through subordinate supervisors and leaders. At this level supervisors make interpretive decisions within the program limits established at higher levels.

Level A-3 is met. The appellant has second level supervisory and decision-making authority for ISE work functions and is responsible for the technical oversight of the maintenance and repair of base facilities and infrastructure work, which is performed in various occupations. Like Level A-3, the scope of the work requires the appellant to utilize subordinate supervisors/chiefs through structured working relationships with the subordinate workers in the shops, formal procedures for scheduling and assigning work and work results, and the issuance of instructions through the subordinate supervisors/chiefs. Similar to this level, the appellant makes interpretive decisions within the program limits concerning the ISE.

At Level A-4, supervisors have supervisory authority for major work functions or missions. The scope and diversity of work at this level requires supervisors to utilize a large group of subordinate supervisors and leaders typically through two or more levels of supervision to control and manage work functions or missions. Supervisors at this level exercise planning and programming decision authority for the execution of policy made at higher organizational levels. At this level, supervisors must continually evaluate and improve operational effectiveness by studying the work structure and methods, examining various alternatives, calculating benefits to be achieved, and recommending basic changes.

Level A-4 is not met. The appellant believes he has supervisory authority for major work functions and should be credited this level. He is responsible for important work functions that impact all tenant organizations and their employees, but the scope and diversity of the work does not require he utilize a large group of subordinate supervisors through two or more levels of supervision to control or manage ISE. The appellant does not exercise planning and programming decision authority for the execution of policy made at higher organizational levels. When necessary, he analyzes a shop’s work schedule for short falls if productivity declines (e.g., determining if workers assigned to the project have the needed skill levels) and recommends improvements, but he does not continually evaluate and improve operational effectiveness by studying the work structure and methods, examining various alternatives, calculating benefits to be achieved, and recommending basic changes. Consequently, we evaluate this subfactor at Level A-3 and credit 75 points.

Subfactor B, Variety of Function

This subfactor evaluates the difficulties of technical supervision of work functions which may vary from being essentially similar to markedly dissimilar. Similar or related work functions have a common or related body of knowledges, skills, work procedures, and tools. Supervision of dissimilar or unrelated work functions require broader technical knowledges and planning and coordination skills than those required for supervision of similar work functions.

Level B-4 is met. The appellant does not dispute assignment of Level B-4, but we have reviewed it to ensure its accuracy. This level describes supervisors directing the work of subordinates in dissimilar or unrelated occupations at grades 8-13. As previously discussed under Factor 2, we credited the base level of work supervised at the Grade 11 level in various dissimilar occupations performed in three shops. Level B-5 is not met, which describes supervisors who direct the work of subordinates in accomplishing assigned functions which are performed in similar or related occupations in grades 14-15. Therefore, we evaluate this subfactor at Level B-4 and credit 60 points.

Subfactor C, Workforce Dispersion

This subfactor evaluates the varying levels of difficulty associated with monitoring and coordinating the work of nonsupervisory and supervisory personnel who vary from being collocated to widely dispersed. Dispersion of workforce considers the duration of projects, number of work sites, frequency of dispersion, and the necessity to monitor and coordinate the work.

At Level C-1, subordinate employees are located in several buildings or at work sites within a defined location such as a military base, National Park, or large Federal complex consisting of many multi-floor buildings and support facilities. Work assignments vary in terms of duration; however, most assignments are of a limited duration. The appellant believes Level C-1 should be credited because he supervises subordinate employees located within the military base working at separate locations, including WFSM workers testing the water’s chlorine levels at well sites five to six miles off base. In addition, work assignments vary in duration (e.g., taking up to an hour to fix a leaky faucet and taking days to locate a HVAC refrigerant leak). Based on relevant advisory guidance provided by OPM’s Classification Programs Division and addressed in OPM’s Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, Number 21, Article number 21-06 (June 1998), the shop supervisors/chiefs at ISE are primarily responsible for directly monitoring the performance of work so workforce dispersion does not significantly add to the appellant’s coordination and monitoring demands as a second-level supervisor. His job possesses significant coordination demands, but they were already recognized under other factors and they relate to the work operation, rather than to workforce dispersion. Therefore, no credit is assigned under this subfactor.

The total credit for Factor 3 is 135 points, which equates to Level C (115 to 135 points) on the Point Conversion Chart for Factor 3 of the JGS for Supervisors.

Tentative Grade Assignment

According to the JGS’s Grading Table for jobs credited with Supervisory Situation 3, the intersection point for Grade 11 level of work supervised and Level C scope of work operations supervised is the Grade 14.

Final Grade Determination

Both upward and downward changes from the tentative grade are required based on certain circumstances. A situation requiring a downward adjustment is offset by an upward adjustment. Grade level adjustments may not exceed one grade level.

   Downward

A downward adjustment is required when the tentative grade would be the same grade as the supervisor’s superior. This situation does not apply to the appellant’s job.

   Upward

Upward grade adjustments are made for borderline jobs and work situations that impose special or unusual demands on the supervisor.

Borderline Jobs. An upward adjustment is warranted when the supervisory job substantially exceeds the situation credited under Factor 1 and the base level of work determined under Factor 2 is not the highest level of subordinate work for which the supervisor has full technical responsibility. In the appellant’s case, a grade adjustment based on borderline conditions is not warranted.

Special or Unusual Demands. In some situations, the nature of the work operations supervised, the mission to be accomplished, or other circumstances impose special demands on the supervisor involved. These special requirements may significantly affect the intensity of the supervisory effort, and the level of both technical and administrative knowledge and skill which must be applied. In the appellant’s case, a grade adjustment based on special staffing requirements or unusual demands is not warranted.

Summary

By application of the job grading criteria in the FWS JGS for Supervisors we find the appellant’s job is properly graded at the Grade 14 level.

Decision

The appellant’s job is properly graded as General Maintenance and Operations Supervisor, WS-4701-14.

Back to Top