Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Pay Category Appeal Decision
Under sections 5103 and 5112 of title 5, United States Code
Flight Line Management Branch
Operations Support Management Division
Maintenance Repair and Overhaul
Production Department
Commanding Officer
Fleet Readiness Center, East
U.S Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point
U.S. Department of the Navy
Cherry Point, North Carolina
Kimberly A. Steide, DPA
Principal Deputy Associate Director
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
02/03/2025
Date
As provided in section 511.612 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision constitutes a certificate which 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 jobs 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 classification of the appealed position (i.e., occupational series), it is to be effective no later than the beginning of the fourth pay period after the date of this decision (5 CFR 511.702). In addition, as indicated in this decision, our findings show the appellants’ official job description (JD) does not meet the standard of adequacy described in the Federal Wage System-Appropriated Fund Operating Manual, Subchapter S6-6.d. Since JDs must meet the standard of adequacy, the agency must revise the appellants’ JD to reflect our findings. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing the corrected JD and a Standard Form 50 showing a change in occupational series within 30 days of the effective date of the personnel action. The report must be submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation (ACE), Washington, DC, office
The appellants’ job is currently graded in the Federal Wage System (FWS) pay category as Aircraft Weight and Balance Operator (Aircraft), WG-5201-10. However, they believe their job should be classified in one of several General Schedule (GS) series discussed later in this decision. The appellants work in the Weight and Balance Shop (WBS), Flight Line Management Branch (FLMB), Operations Support Management Division, Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Production Department (MROPD), Commanding Officer, Fleet Readiness Center, East (FRCE), U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy), at Cherry Point, North Carolina. The appellants question the pay category, series, and title assigned to their job by the agency. We have accepted and decided their appeal under sections 5103, 5112, and 5346 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
The OPM periodically conducts reviews of established job series updating them when appropriate and canceling a job series when it is found that fewer than 25 active jobs exist throughout the Federal Government. In 2010, OPM canceled the Weight and Balance Operating Series, 5485, after it determined the series had fewer than 25 active jobs assigned to it. At that time, OPM advised agencies with employees assigned to jobs in the 5485 series to classify them in the General Industrial Equipment Operation Series, 5401, and grade the work using the most appropriate job grading standard within the 5400 Industrial Equipment Operation Family. However, the record shows that while the agency initially classified the appellants’ job in the 5401 series, ultimately it reclassified it in the General Miscellaneous Occupations Series, 5201, titling it Aircraft Weight and Balance Operator (Aircraft),WG-5201-10, and updated the JD.
The appellants make various statements about their agency’s processes for determining the pay category, series, and title of their job and compare their job to other positions/jobs specifically those classified in the GS pay system inside and outside their agency. While they state their work in some respects could be trade-related (i.e., General Metal Working Series, 3801) they believe the knowledge to perform their primary duty is typical of GS positions classified in the series discussed later in this decision. They also assert their job title may be inaccurate and ask OPM to determine an appropriate title.
In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make our own independent decision on the proper pay category, occupational series, and title of the appellants’ job. By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing their current duties and responsibilities to appropriate Job Grading Standard (JGS) and other applicable guidelines (5 U.S. C. 5106, 5107, 5112, and 5346). Since comparison to OPM standards and guidelines is the exclusive method for determining the pay category, series, and title of a job, we cannot compare their job to others, which may or may not be properly classified, as a basis for deciding this appeal (5 CFR 511.607 (b)(4)). Therefore, we have considered the appellants’ statements only insofar as they are relevant to making that comparison.
Like OPM, the appellants’ agency must classify positions based on comparison to OPM standards and guidelines. However, the agency also has primary responsibility for ensuring that its positions/jobs are classified consistently with OPM appeal decisions. If the appellants consider their job so similar to others in their agency that they all warrant the same classification, they may pursue the matter by writing to their agency’s human resources headquarters office. In doing so, they should specify the precise organizational location, classification, duties, and responsibilities of the positions in question. If the positions are found to be basically the same as theirs, the agency must correct their classification to be consistent with this appeal decision. Otherwise, the agency should explain to them the differences between their job and the others.
The appellants identify duties and responsibilities in their official JD (number 1479A) which they assert are not performed by them, such as descriptions of work involving hands-on mechanical tasks. These include assisting aircraft mechanics (i.e., Airframe Mechanics (AFM) in the preparation of aircraft to be weighed and physical manipulation of aircraft during the weighing and balancing process; removal of major aircraft components for overhaul or modification; and inspections of aircraft for damaged, worn, or misaligned parts or surfaces.
In addition, although the supervisor initially certified to the accuracy of the appellants’ current JD, during subsequent telephone interviews and email communications with OPM he confirmed that, while the appellants must possess a practical knowledge of aircraft construction, mechanics, and component location to accurately weigh and identify the balance points on a variety of aircraft, they do not perform aircraft mechanic work. He also confirmed the appellants do not perform or assist AFMs with the physical manipulation of aircraft during the weighing and balancing process. Instead, the supervisor stated that all mechanical and aircraft manipulation tasks including movement of aircraft is solely performed by AFMs under the direction of the appellants. Based on our independent review of the JD we concur with the appellants’ and their supervisor’s concerns regarding the inaccuracies identified.
Given the preceding inaccuracies described above, the appellants’ JD does not meet the standard of adequacy described in the Federal Wage System-Appropriated Fund Operating Manual, Subchapter S6-6d, and the agency must revise the JD to reflect our findings.
FRCE is a naval aviation maintenance and repair depot whose mission is to provide aviation-related maintenance, repair, engineering, and logistics support primarily to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The appellants’ job is located within the WBS, which is a sub-section of FRCE’s MROPD. The appellants’ job reports directly to the Supervisor, FLMB, who has full authority to assign and evaluate work performed by the appellants. The work performed by the appellants provides operational support for FLMB’s aircraft weight and balance-related programs and processes in the Industrial Execution Division of the Aircraft Mechanics Branch.
The appellants’ primary duty involves the weighing and balancing of aircraft. At their direction, the AFMs lift, move, and position the aircraft so the appellants can use portable and stationary industrial equipment to take critical measurements during the weighing and balancing process. They receive aircraft from various commands and entities, audit aircraft historical records and identify any discrepancies (e.g., work orders, time compliant technical directives/orders, airframe changes, deletion/addition of fixed components and equipment, avionics/airframe bulletins, rapid minor engineering changes, special work requests for modifications, and documented structure changes), and refer any discrepancies noted to the appropriate personnel for review and correction.
They use a general knowledge of the construction and mechanical function of rotary, fixed, and variable geometry winged aircraft and a variety of trade-related tools (e.g., scales, ramps, tape measure, plumb bob, precision leveling equipment, hydrometers, inclinometers, chalk lines, and tape calculators) to determine the current location of materials, components, and payloads (e.g., mechanical, and electronic components; weapon; materials (e.g., paint, lubricant, and sealant); fluids (e.g., fuel, coolant, and hydraulic fluid); and the pilot and their gear)). They apply a variety of standard mathematic (e.g., algebraic, geometric, and physics) formulas and automated computer software, including Automated Weight and Balance Software (AWBS), to weigh and calculate the center of gravity (CG) and balance points of aircraft within a variety of pre-determined load scenarios and geometric configurations.
In performing their daily tasks, they strictly adhere to established guidelines, protocols, and standard forms and checklists including the Basic Weight and Balance Record (BWBR) DD-365-3; the Weight and Balance Clearance Form (WBCF) DD-365-4; Airplane Weighing Record (AWR) DD365-2; and the Basic Weight Checklist (BWCL) DD365-1. They also use information in automated databases including the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Electronic Storage and Retrieval System (ESRS); Naval Data Distribution System (NDDS); and the Decision Knowledge Programming (DECKPLATE)) to collect, record, analyze and share data and information and to develop and submit standard documents and reports.
Upon request and as needed, they perform weight and balance training for groups and individuals inside and outside their command.
In adjudicating this appeal, we carefully considered all information provided by the appellants and their agency including their official JD which, although not completely accurate, we have incorporated by reference into this decision. In addition, to help decide the appeal we conducted a telephone interview with the appellants and a separate telephone interview with their supervisor (Operations Management Branch Head).
The appellants believe their agency erred when assigning their job to the FWS pay category. They assert it should be classified in the GS pay category in one of several GS series including the Miscellaneous Administration and Program Series, 0301; Management and Program Analysis Series, 0343; Engineering Technical Series, 0802; Production Control Series, 1152; and Quality Assurance Series, 1910. They contend the knowledge required to perform their job’s regular and recurring duties (e.g., knowledge of the functions of various fixed wing, rotary, and variable geometry aircraft, and general knowledge of the location of equipment, components, and payloads for each aircraft), and the technical and administrative tasks associated with their work (e.g., records keeping, database updates, and mathematic calculations) meet the requirements of GS duties and responsibilities.
Section 5102(c)(7) of title 5, U.S.C., exempts from the GS employees in recognized trades or crafts, or other skilled mechanical crafts, or unskilled, semiskilled, or skilled manual labor occupations, and other employees in positions having trade, craft, or laboring experience and knowledge as the paramount requirement of the job. The Introduction defines “paramount requirement” as the essential, prerequisite knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform the primary duty or responsibility for which the position has been established. Whether a position is in a trade, craft, or manual labor occupation within the meaning of title 5 depends primarily on the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements, i.e., the most important, or chief, knowledge requirement for the performance of a primary duty or responsibility for which the position exists.
Therefore, when determining whether a job is a trades, crafts, or manual labor occupation excluded from the GS under 5 U.S.C. 5102(c)(7), it is important to determine the paramount knowledge required to perform the primary duty of the job, including considering the recruitment sources necessary to fill the job (i.e., recruitment pool), and the mission of the organization to which the job is assigned. If an organization’s mission is clearly trades, crafts, or manual labor oriented, and a job in that organization demonstrates that trade, craft, or laboring experience knowledge is the paramount requirement for the performance of the job’s primary duty, and the recruitment pool for the job consists of trades, crafts, or manual labor occupations, then the job is classified in the FWS. However, a position is subject to the GS, even if it requires physical work, if its primary duty requires knowledge or experience of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature not related to trades, craft, or manual labor work.
In his interview with OPM, the appellants’ supervisor stated that the WBS is one of three sections (i.e., WBS, Production Support Shop (PSS), and Maintenance Control Shop (MCS)) under FLMB whose primary task is to perform mechanical and structural maintenance and/or repair of aircraft. He stated that FRCE’s mission is primarily focused on aviation-related maintenance, repair, engineering, and logistical support. The appellants also made similar organizational and mission related comments during their interview.
The supervisor emphasized (and we confirmed) that although the appellants’ job does not require them to directly perform AFM work, he considered the background knowledge they apply to weigh and balance aircraft equivalent to journeyman level knowledge in the AFM trade (e.g., knowledge of general aircraft construction and of the function, location, and weight of components, equipment, materials, and payloads of various fixed, rotary, and variable geometry aircraft). He stated that background knowledge is the paramount requirement of the job and that all other knowledge (e.g., mathematic calculations, database management, intersectional coordination and communication) is incidental to journeyman level AFM trade knowledge and experience. The supervisor also noted that because the FRCE’s mission and primary role is naval aviation maintenance and repair, the primary hiring recruitment pool for vacant Weight and Balance Operator jobs consists of those employees who have current journeyman level AFM trade knowledge and experience.
For the appellants’ job to be covered under the GS, the paramount knowledge to perform the primary duty of the position must be of an administrative, clerical, scientific, artistic, or technical nature. This is not the case in the appellants’ job. While they do not directly perform AFM trades and crafts work, based on our fact-finding and interviews we find that journey level background knowledge and experience in that trade is critical to perform their current duties and significantly enhances their skills in carrying out their aircraft weighing and balancing duties. Therefore, trades and crafts knowledge are paramount to performing their primary duty. In addition, as discussed above, when filling vacancies the principal recruitment pool consists of candidates having AFM trades and crafts knowledge, and the appellants duties reflect the trades-oriented mission of their organization to maintain and repair aircraft. Therefore, we find their job meets the GS exemption criteria in 5 U.S.C. 5102 (c)(7) and thus will not further discuss the GS series suggested by the appellants.
Occupational series and title determination
As previously discussed, OPM advised agencies with employees assigned to the 5485 series to reclassify these FWS jobs to the General Industrial Equipment Operation Series, 5401, and grade the work using the most appropriate job grading standard within the 5400 Industrial Equipment Operation Family. While the agency initially followed this guidance, ultimately it reclassified the appellants’ job to the General Miscellaneous Occupations Series, 5201, titling it Aircraft Weight and Balance Operator (Aircraft).
The appellants acknowledge their job contains elements of FWS work and compare some of their duties to jobs coded in the General Metal Working Series, 3801. They also express concern that their current job title may be inappropriate based on the titling instructions of the 5201 occupational series.
The 3800 Metal Work Family includes occupations involved in shaping and forming metal and making and repairing metal parts or equipment and includes such work as the fabrication and assembly of sheet metal parts and equipment; forging and press operations; structural iron working, boiler-making, ship-fitting, and other plate metal work; rolling, cutting, stamping, riveting, etc. It does not include machine tool work.
The 5200 Miscellaneous Occupations Family includes occupations that are not covered by the definition of any other job family or that are of such a general or miscellaneous character as to preclude placing them within another job family.
The 5400 Industrial Equipment Operation Family includes occupations involved in the operation of portable and stationary industrial equipment, tools, and machines to generate and distribute utilities such as electricity, steam, and gas for heat or power; treat and distribute water; collect, treat, and dispose of waste; open and close bridges, locks, and dams; lift and move workers, materials, and equipment; manufacture and process materials and products, etc.
The appellants’ job does not meet the definition of work coded in any series covered by the 3800 General Metal Work Family, including the General Metal Working Series, 3801, which describes jobs which cannot be identified with an established occupation within the 3800 family, but which can be identified with the family itself. Unlike work in the 3800 family, the paramount knowledge requirement of their job does not include knowledge of fabrication and assembly of sheet metal parts and equipment; forging and press operations; structural iron working, boiler-making, ship-fitting, and other plate metal work; and rolling, cutting, stamping, riveting.
However, the appellants’ job meets the basic requirements for coding in the 5400 Industrial Equipment Operation Family. Similar to the 5400 family, the appellants’ work requires knowledge of general aircraft construction and of the function, location, and weight of components, equipment, materials, and payloads sufficient to direct the operation of portable and stationary industrial equipment, tools, and machines used to lift, move, weigh, and determine the balance point of various fixed, rotary, and variable geometry aircraft.
The appellants’ job does not meet the basic requirements of the 5200, Miscellaneous Occupations Family, which by definition can only be coded to occupations which are not covered by the definition of any other job family or that are of such a general or miscellaneous character as to preclude its placement within another job family.
Series ending in the “01” code in each job family (e.g., 5400 - Industrial Equipment Operation Family) is designated as a general code and is used for jobs which cannot be identified with an established occupation within the family but which can be identified with the family itself. Thus, one type of job which should be assigned to the “01” code is the general job which is characteristic of the family but not of any specific occupation within the family. A second type of job which should be assigned the “01” code is that which has a narrower range of duties readily identified with the job family but for which no specific occupation has been established.
Like the first criterion, the appellants’ job is assigned the “01” code because their general job is characteristic of the 5400 family, but not of any specific occupation within the family. Thus, it is classified in the General Industrial Equipment Operation Series, 5401.
The 5401 occupational series provides no specific titling criteria. Therefore, selection of an appropriate title is at the discretion of the agency, within the context of the 5400 Industrial Equipment Operation family.
The appellants’ job is properly covered by the FWS pay category, and coded to the General Industrial Equipment Operation Series, 5401, with titling at the agency’s discretion.