Washington, DC

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

---

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

05/01/2014

---

Date

As provided in section S7-8 of the Appropriated Fund Operating Manual (Federal Wage System) (FWS), this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits 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).

As discussed in this decision, the appellant’s job description (JD) does not meet the standard of adequacy contained in the Appropriated Fund Operating Manual (FWS), Subchapter 6-6, Job Descriptions.  Since JDs must meet this standard of adequacy, the appellant’s JD must be revised to meet this standard.  The servicing human resources office must send us a compliance report containing the corrected JD and a Standard Form 50 showing when the revised PD became effective.  The report must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of the personnel action to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) office that adjudicated this appeal.

Introduction

On October 19, 2011, OPM’s Agency Compliance and Evaluation-Chicago (formerly the Chicago Oversight office), accepted a job grading appeal from Mr. David A. Stutesman. The appellant’s job was in the Document Services Branch (DSB), National Processing Center (NPC), U.S. Census Bureau (Census), with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) in Jeffersonville, Indiana. The appellant’s job is currently graded as Electromotive Equipment Worker, WG-5876-8. He initially requested his job be graded as Electromotive Mechanic, WG-5876-10, but subsequently requested it be graded as Electromotive Equipment Mechanic, WG-5876-10. We received the initial agency administrative report (AAR) on November 14, 2011. On November 23, 2012, the appellant’s position was reassigned to the Motor Vehicle Unit with the Warehousing and Transportation Section in the Support Services Branch at NPC. We received the SF-50, the organization chart, and final information from the agency on April 3, 2014. We have accepted and decided this appeal under the provisions of section 5346 of title 5, United States Code.

Background and General issues

The appellant’s job was graded as Electronics Mechanic Helper, WG-2604-5, at [location] from October 12, 2008, to April 23, 2011, when based on a desk audit, it was re-graded as  Electromotive Equipment Worker, WG-5876-8, effective April 24, 2011.  In 2011 he filed a job grading appeal with the DOC because he said “the paramount duty of his position is to repair, replace parts and components of electric powered warehouse material handling equipment (forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.).”  The appeal decision upheld the previous grading as Electromotive Equipment Worker, WG-5876-8.  Per his request, DOC forwarded his appeal to OPM for adjudication since he was dissatisfied with the DOC appeal decision. 

The appellant makes various statements about his agency’s evaluation of his job.  In adjudicating this appeal, our responsibility is to make an independent decision on the proper grading of his job.  Because our decision sets aside all previous agency decisions, the agency’s job grading review process is not germane to this decision.  By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing his current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5346).  Therefore, the appellant’s reliance on Department of the Navy guidance in his appeal rationale is contrary to law and may not be considered in this decision.  Further, because the law prohibits position-to-position comparison for grading purposes (5 U.S.C. 5346), we may not consider the claimant’s statements regarding work he has performed in the past or work assigned to and performed by other staff members, or the vacancy announcement he submitted for a WG-5786-10 job which may or may not be graded properly.

The appellant also requests back pay for the time he was incorrectly graded as a grade 5, and longer, if justified.  The U.S. Comptroller General states an “…employee is entitled only to the salary of the position to which he is actually appointed, regardless of the duties performed.  When an employee performs the duties of a higher grade level, no entitlement to the salary of the higher grade exists until such time as the individual is actually promoted…  Consequently, back pay is not available as a remedy for misassignments to higher level duties or improper classifications (Decision Number B-232695, December 15, 1989).”  Reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Testan (424 U.S. 372 (1976), the Court stated, “…the federal employee is entitled to receive only the salary of the position to which he was appointed, even though he may have performed the duties of another position or claim that he should have been placed in a higher grade.”

Job information

The appellant reports directly to the Motor Vehicle Operator (Supervisor), WS-5703-8, who manages the motor pool, the centrally managed group of motor vehicles intended for the use of [location] personnel.  The automobiles are leased and maintained through GSA contracts.  The unit also houses the electric-powered material handling and other self-propelled mobile equipment at [location].

The primary purpose of the appellant’s job is to maintain approximately 40 lifts and 20 personnel carts.  This involves the on-site inspection, trouble-shooting, repair, modification, and overhaul of the electromotive equipment which includes electric-powered forklifts, pallet jacks, pallet tilters, stackers, as well as three- and four-wheeled motorized carts used to transport personnel.  He also uses the carts to move materials, tools, and equipment to the job sites and while on trouble runs.

The appellant develops maintenance schedules and procedures for the mechanized materials handling equipment at [location] and maintains records and documents actions relative to the maintenance of the equipment.  He stores proper stock levels of parts, materials, tools, etc., and informs the supervisor of the need to order parts, tools, and related material, and delivers parts, tools and other necessary items to job sites.

He conducts periodic safety, preventive, and recurring inspections, including lubricating equipment in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and checking voltage and amperage changes in electrical equipment.  He cleans, inspects, removes, replaces, repairs, and adjusts a wide range of components and parts, including commutators, field coils, bearings, bushings, plates, grease retainers, mounts, brush holders, masts and chains, electric motors, and electrical drive/operation control components.  He maintains and repairs electrical wiring systems, related switches, power distribution panels, and outlet boxes.  He also performs routine maintenance as scheduled in the owner’s manuals.

The appellant services electromotive equipment, including equipment under warranty. He performs battery acid level readings and effects proper water/action level replenishment.  He cleans and adjusts brakes and maintains brake fluid levels.  He repairs or replaces pneumatic tires, checks their air pressure, and inflates to the correct pressure.

He troubleshoots problems with the electromotive equipment to determine the nature and complexity of repairs needed.  He uses a multimeter to test electric circuits to measure voltage, resistance, and current.  He also uses meggers, precision measuring instruments (calipers, micrometers, feeler gauges, torque wrenches), and onboard computer analyzers.  The appellant also operates a plug-in power generator to test components and to power hand-held tools such as drills.  He follows standard formulas, shop mathematics, trade theories, and industry practices to solve problems and calculate materials needed.  The repairs and replacements include electrical contact cleaning and replacement, wiring terminal connection replacement, solenoids, fuses, hydraulic pumps, cylinders, gaskets, seals, and bearings.  He replaces, adjusts, and repairs specialized electronic control units of electrically driven warehouse equipment.  He performs component adjustment for material handling and drive control adjustments, and replaces sheet metal, horns, headlamps, lights, mirrors, seatbelts, etc.  After any repairs or adjustments, he test operates equipment to ensure proper operation.

Specifically, the appellant repairs and modifies the personnel carriers to keep them in operation.  For access to the batteries, he must tilt the hood which is the box that covers the seat and the battery compartment.  If the hood gets dented he hammers it back in shape.  He has to dissemble it regularly to get to a switch under the seat which frequently needs replacement.  If the seat is torn, he replaces the upholstery.  He also repairs the steering systems on the personnel carriers.  The three-wheel passenger carts have a design flaw in the steering mechanism which leads to gear failure.  This requires the appellant to open and tear down the gearbox in order to access the shaft to remove and clean 3-inch gears and replace bearings and seals.  He also makes material handling and drive control adjustments.

The appellant also repairs and modifies the lifts to keep them in operation.  He performs a range of steel fabrication work in order to repair or modify them, particularly the Toyota forklifts.  For example, headlights, mounting brackets, and guards are constantly being damaged, broken, or bent by the operators hitting the pallet racks with the lights.  He removes and repairs them by bending or hammering the metal back into the proper shape to rebuild them.  He then must sand and repaint them before re-installing them.  He performs body work to repair panels and also uses a de-scaler to remove corrosion on the pitted body metal prior to sanding and painting.  Since there is no air conditioning in the facility, the appellant checks with vendors for approval of modifications to plates and arms to coordinate the design of wiring (opened or closed) for heat dissipation before installing fans on the lifts.  This is required to maintain the safety certificate of the safety cages.  He rebuilds latches when the fittings or mounts break, which are similar to the lifts on the back of an SUV.  He also repairs the tips of the cylinders (which are like shock absorbers), refitting tips into the Shadow Shock Absorber and Strut Assembly and threading them to the lift.  He modifies new forklifts by adding lights and other electrical equipment.  Some modifications require detailed plans to be submitted to manufacturers for prior approval per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directives. He repairs and rebuilds hydraulic cylinders on the forklifts as stage 1 is all hydraulic (the other stages are assisted by chains), replaces hydraulic filters, repairs or replaces charge units by reusing old equipment and parts, repairs pumps, repairs directional controls, and overhauls light electrical motors.  The appellant has periodically replaced and/or added hydraulic fluid to the tilt cylinder on the pallet jacks.  He states he has had to request a disclaimer from OSHA rules to not change hoses as shown in the manual for scheduled maintenance out of warranty. 

The appellant performs incidental electrical work, such as repairs of electric motors and lights.  For smaller motors he routinely replaces the brushes and bearings, but on the larger motors it is less expensive to replace than to repair them.  He repairs light sockets on the forklift plates when they burn out through constant use.  He repairs the contacts when the springs melt in the light sockets.  The forklifts have electronic controls with onboard computers with an analysis mode which provides trouble codes to assist the appellant in identifying problems and making repairs.  He also uses the controls to set maximum and minimum speeds, the sensitivity of the self-braking system, and the time response for the hydraulic controls.

The appellant also performs incidental pneumatic work, repairing the pneumatic hood struts on the forklifts.  The forklifts use solid rubber wheels while the carts use air-filled tires which require inflation and routine tire and rim repair.

The appellant’s objectives are set very generally by his supervisor, as he plans and organizes his day-to-day work based on a scheduled maintenance plan, as amended each day based on work orders (WOs) received by email from branch managers and other unit supervisors.  The appellant identifies what needs to be done and independently plans and carries out assignments.  He inspects and reviews his own work products.  He maintains records of and documents actions relative to the maintenance equipment.  He keeps the shop area organized, clean, and safe.

Neither the appellant nor his immediate supervisor certified the accuracy of his JD.  The appellant’s JD (number 028167) does not meet the required standard of adequacy since it does not address the full range of the functions he performs and must be revised accordingly.  See Appropriated Fund Operating Manual (FWS), Subchapter 6-6, Job Descriptions).  To help decide this appeal, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellant and a telephone interview with his former and current supervisors.  In reaching our decision, we have carefully reviewed all the information in the written record provided by the appellant and the agency, as well as the information from our interviews.

Occupational code, title, and standard determination

The appellant states he occupies a “mixed” job within the meaning of the FWS.  Guidance contained in Section III of the Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job Grading System (Intro) states that jobs requiring the performance of work in two or more occupations (mixed jobs) are to be coded to the occupation that is most important for recruitment, selection, placement, promotion, or reduction-in-force purposes.  Mixed jobs, such as the appellant’s, which involve performance on a regular and recurring basis of duties in two or more occupations at the same or different grade levels are discussed in the Intro including the rules for titling (Section III, B. 4.) and grading (Section II, C. 3.)

The agency assigned the appellant’s job to the 5876 Electromotive Equipment Mechanic occupation, and the appellant agrees.  The 5876 occupation covers jobs involved in overhaul and repair of electric-powered material handling and other self-propelled mobile equipment such as electric-powered forklifts, cranes, platform lifts, and electric tugs, including magnetically controlled types.  The work requires the application of general mechanical skills and knowledge together with specialized knowledge of electric motors and circuitry for which such equipment derives motive power.  After a thorough review of the record, we agree the appellant’s job is properly assigned to the 5876 occupation as this work represents the primary purpose of his job and was the basis for recruitment and selection for the job.  Therefore, the appellant’s job is properly titled and coded as Electromotive Equipment Worker, WG-5876, consistent with the titling practices in the Job Grading Standards (JGS) used to grade his work

However, the 5876 occupation does not have published grading criteria, so the agency applied the 5823 Automotive Mechanic JGS for cross-comparison as this standard is used to grade all nonsupervisory jobs involved in the maintenance, repair, and overhaul of combustion-powered vehicles and equipment with similar characteristics.  However, the appellant disagrees because of the lack of similarities between an automobile engine and an electric-powered forklift and believes a more accurate comparison can be made using the JGSs for Aircraft Mechanic, 8852, Aircraft Electrician, 2892, or Aircraft Hydraulic Mechanic, 8268.  He states this is due in large part to the lack of hydraulic systems and complex electrical control systems on automobiles, but which are found on aircraft that he asserts are similar to the systems on the electric-powered Toyota forklifts in use at [location].  He also points out the forklifts at [location] are entirely electric driven and controlled and do not contain many of the systems listed for automobiles (for example, combustion engines and components, transmissions, fuel intake, exhausts, etc.) in the 5823 JGS.

Since there are no published grading criteria for jobs in the 5876 occupation, it is necessary to cross reference our evaluation to grading criteria in published standards covering related occupations and similar kinds of work processes, functions, or subject matter, knowledge and skills, and having a similar level of difficulty and responsibility.  

In reviewing the record, we examined a number of possible standards for such cross comparison to address the use of several other occupations which were mentioned during the prior appeal process by either the appellant or his agency, or during our fact-finding.  However, we did not apply these other JGSs because, while similar to the work performed by the appellant in some respects, they were sufficiently dissimilar so as to preclude cross-series comparison (Sheet Metal Mechanic, 3806,  Electrical Equipment Repairing 2854, or Electrician, 2805); the grade level determined was lower than our final grade determination using the 3809 JGS (Bowling Equipment Repairing, 4819, Mobile Equipment Servicing, 5806); or the work performed was incidental to the primary purpose of the job such that classification to such an occupation  would be inappropriate and not grade controlling (Upholstering, 3106, Painting, 4102, or Welding, 3703).  

The paramount duties of the appellant’s job, as described previously, are best evaluated by comparison to the 3809 Mobile Equipment Metal Mechanic JGS because it allows the best comparison to the work performed.  The 3809 JGS covers the nonsupervisory work of maintaining and repairing mobile equipment bodies and mainframe groups.  Work is performed on such mobile equipment as passenger cars, trucks, buses, warehouse tractors, forklifts, ambulances, cranes, fire trucks, and mobile construction equipment.  The mobile equipment metal mechanic occupation is characterized by the requirement for knowledge of mobile equipment body and mainframe construction characteristics and the ability to determine the best method of repairing damage to such components.  This knowledge and ability is combined with skill in a variety of related trade methods such as the use of sheet metal and welding tools and equipment required in the repair, fabrication or replacement of damaged metal parts and assemblies.  Positions performing sheet metal or welding work where knowledge of standard mobile equipment construction is not a paramount requirement are not directly covered by this standard.  The work requires a knowledge of mobile equipment body construction, the ability to determine the extent of damage and most economical methods of repair, and the skill to remove, fabricate, reshape and replace or repair such damage as dents, tears, wrinkles, cuts and creases by cutting, knocking out, welding, filling and sanding.  This best compares to the paramount work required by the appellant’s job. 

The grade of a mixed job in the FWS, such as the appellant’s, is based on the duties that require the highest skill and qualifications of the job and are regular and recurring, even if the duties are not performed for a majority of the time. If a job involves regular and recurring duties at the same level in two or more occupations, such a mixed job is graded to that same level. The appellant asserts his electrical, hydraulic, and pneudraulic work is regular and recurring within the meaning of the FWS. While there is no specified percentage-of-time requirement for duties controlling the grade of an FWS job, established OPM policy states special care must be exercised if the percentage devoted to the highest-grade duties is low; e.g., 15 percent. In this case, there is a greater tendency to make the following errors: (1) crediting duties which are not repetitively performed on a continuing basis and, therefore, should not be credited in any way; (2) incorrectly assuming that the duties require the full range of work and qualifications necessary to warrant the grade being considered; and (3) incorrectly assuming that the duties are performed under normal supervision for the grade being considered when they are performed under closer supervision and, therefore, overgrading the job.

Our attempts to clarify the amount of time the appellant spends on electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic repair, replacement and overhaul work were unsuccessful. He included this work in the 10-20 percent of the time he spends on “unscheduled maintenance;” i.e., “breakdowns, troubleshooting and repairs.” Thus, it is unclear as to whether this work is regular and recurring within the meaning of the FWS as discussed previously. Nevertheless, we will also apply the 8852 JGS to the appellant’s work to the extent needed to respond to the job grading issues he has raised in his appeal rationale and to address the electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic work, since the 8852 JGS is used to grade all nonsupervisory jobs involved in the maintenance, troubleshooting, repair, overhaul, and modification of fixed and rotary wing aircraft systems, airframes, components and assemblies, where the work requires substantive knowledge of the airframe and aircraft mechanical, pneudraulic, and/or electrical systems and their interrelationships. Some work situations within this series may also require varying levels of electronics knowledge. While not directly applicable to the appellant’s job, we find the appellant’s electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic work sufficiently similar to work covered by the grading criteria in the 8852 JGS to allow for cross-series comparison.

Grade determination

In his rationale, the appellant states that according to his understanding of OPM job grading standards related to a wide range of mechanical work on aircraft, automotive, heavy equipment, and powered support systems, grade 8 workers are generally limited to component removal and installation, whereas grade 10 mechanics modify, repair, and rebuild components and equipment.    He believes his work meets the grade 10 level because he does troubleshooting, repairing, and overhauling of components.  We address this issue in our application of the 3809 and 8852 JGSs to grade his work.

Evaluation using the 3809 JGS

The 3809 JGS contains job grading criteria expressed in terms of four factors used to evaluate all FWS nonsupervisory jobs:  Skill and Knowledge, Responsibility, Physical Effort, and Working Conditions.  These factors provide a framework within which the occupation is structured as well as specifically applicable criteria for evaluating the level of work. 

Skill and Knowledge

This factor covers the nature and level of skill, knowledge, and mental application required in performing assigned work.  Jobs vary in such ways as the kind, amount, and depth of skill and knowledge needed, as well as in the manner, frequency, and extent to which they are used. 

Grade 8 workers have a basic knowledge of mobile equipment construction and know how various components and parts are installed; i.e., bolted, soldered, riveted, or welded.  They have the ability to install pre-cut or factory replacement window glass in vehicle bodies or doors and adjust raising or opening mechanisms.  Grade 8 mobile equipment metal workers are sufficiently skilled in the use of gas and arc welding equipment to cut out damaged or deteriorated areas, remove rusted nuts and bolts, strengthen brackets and braces, weld simple cuts and breaks, and apply heat to bend, reshape, and lead fill damaged areas.  This work is normally performed on vertical or horizontal planes.

Grade 8 workers are skilled in the use of such trade equipment as dolly sets, hammers, grinders and sanders to remove dents and creases in mobile equipment body components and return metal to original contour with minimum stretch or added dents.  They have the ability to apply body filler to build up depressed areas, and the skill to smooth by grinding and sanding, until the contour is uniform with adjoining areas, and are able to apply primer paint with brush or spray gun equipment.  Grade 8 workers use knowledge of arithmetic to calculate and scribe patterns in the fabrication of wood or metal parts having predominantly straight lines or regular curves.

Grade 10 mobile equipment metal mechanics must have knowledge of metal body construction to determine the total extent of damage, and the ability to estimate labor and material requirements.  In comparison to Grade 8 workers, grade 10 mechanics must be able to determine the methods, equipment, material, and techniques required and whether to repair damaged parts or replace them with fabricated or factory replacement parts.  Grade 10 mobile equipment metal mechanics apply a greater knowledge of metals and skill in the use of welding equipment, including acetylene and electric arc, in performing a variety of work such as cutting, brazing, welding, and bending a variety of metal stock.  Work may be performed in an overhead position as well as on vertical and horizontal planes as described at the grade 8 level.  For example, they cut out and re-weld body panels, weld large tears and breaks in body parts and frames, weld reinforcements in place, and apply heat to straighten frames, whereas grade 8 workers perform less skilled work such as cutting out, straightening, and lead filling.  More skill in the use of sheet metal working equipment is required to cut, bend, form, and shape irregular curves, angles and pitch in the fabrication or modification of components and specialized parts than grade 8 workers, who work with straight lines and regular curves.

Grade 10 mobile equipment metal mechanics must have the ability to interpret work orders, blueprints, sketches, and drawings, and the ability to plan and lay out work including the determination of material, equipment, and parts required.  They use shop mathematics and standard handbook formulas in fabricating parts and estimating material and labor requirements.

In comparison with grade 8 workers who repair and replace such damaged body components as fenders, panels, windows, and truck beds, grade 10 mechanics also repair damage to mainframes and body structural members such as door posts, door frames, skeletal frame work, and main support members.  The work at this level requires working to closer tolerances than at the grade 8 level, in the fitting of body to frame, doors, window channels, hoods, trunk lids and other parts. In addition to the type of work performed by workers at the grade 8 level, mechanics at the grade 10 level make more difficult repairs on damaged parts such as folds, wrinkles, and large tears in fenders, doors, hoods, and roofs.  

Grade 8 is met, as the job requires a basic knowledge of mobile equipment construction and how various components and parts are installed, the skill in the use of gas and arc welding equipment to cut out damaged or deteriorated areas, remove rusted nuts and bolts, strengthen brackets and braces, weld simple cuts and breaks, and apply heat to bend, reshape and lead fill damaged areas.  The appellant regularly uses hammers, grinders, and sanders to remove dents and creases in mobile equipment body components and return metal to original contour with minimum stretch or added dents, and must know how to apply body filler to build up depressed areas and how to smooth by grinding and sanding until the contour is uniform with adjoining areas, and then be able to apply primer paint with brush or spray gun equipment. 

Grade 10 is not met.  While the appellant works on complete vehicles, the fact remains that he does not work on a major system of vehicles of grade 10 level complexity, such as body frames to repair damage to mainframes and body structural members or main support members such as door posts, door frames, skeletal frame work, or to the closer tolerances in the fitting of body to frame, doors, window channels, hoods, trunk lids and other parts, which is the basis for the Grade 10 level in the 3809 JGS.  In addition, his duties do not require application of the full scope of occupational knowledge and skills characteristic of trades described at this level, since most repair assignments are covered in detailed technical repair manuals.  The record shows the appellant uses standard shop mathematics and formulas to perform his work and does not show he regularly performs extensive or involved mathematical calculations representative of advanced shop mathematics. 

Therefore, this factor is properly evaluated at the grade 8 level.

Responsibility

This factor covers the nature and degree of responsibility involved in performing work.  Positions vary in responsibility in such ways as the complexity and scope of work assigned, the difficulty and frequency of judgments and decisions made, the kind of supervisory controls, and the nature of work instructions and technical guides used.  

Grade 8 workers receive clear cut work orders and instructions from a supervisor or higher graded worker.  They use predetermined work methods, materials and equipment.  The work is spot checked in progress and inspected upon completion for compliance with instructions and adherence to established trade practices and standards.   A supervisor or higher graded employee is available for advice on unusual problems. 

Grade 10 mobile equipment metal mechanics are assigned work orally or through work orders.  In comparison to grade 8 workers who receive specific instructions as to methods, tools, and materials required for each job, grade 10 mechanics plan and lay out the work from sketches, blueprints, or specifications and make independent judgments and decisions within accepted trade practices and procedures.  Work is spot checked upon completion for quality of workmanship and compliance with work orders.  The supervisor is called upon for advice on unusual problems.

The record shows the appellant schedules his own work day based on the monthly maintenance plan he has developed, along with daily changes in response to WOs and other work requests.  He also lays out the work, which closely matches the JGS at this level.  In addition, he checks his own work, as his supervisor does not have the trade knowledge to do so or provide advice on unusual problems.  However, because the appellant does not perform the full range of grade 10 maintenance, repair, and installation work as discussed previously, he does not deal with the variety of issues and does not exercise the greater judgment and independent action on work found at the grade 10 level.  His additional responsibility does not so substantially exceed the grade 8 to warrant consideration of an intervening grade. 

Therefore, this factor is properly evaluated at the grade 8 level. 

Physical effort

This factor covers the physical effort exerted in performing assigned work.  Positions vary in such ways as the nature, degree, frequency, and duration of muscular effort or physical strain experienced in work performance. 

Grade 8 workers perform frequent lifting, pushing, pulling, carrying and handling of objects weighing 14 to 23 kilograms (35 to 50 pounds), and occasionally up to 34 kilograms (75 pounds).  The work requires prolonged standing, stooping, kneeling, bending and climbing.  At this level, workers also frequently must reach in hard-to-get-at places and work in tiring and uncomfortable positions. 

Physical effort required at grade 10 is the same as that described at the grade 8 level.  Therefore, this factor is not grade-determining. 

Working conditions

This factor covers hazards, physical hardships, and working conditions to which workers are exposed in performing assigned work.  Positions vary in such ways as the nature of the work environment; the extent to which it includes unpleasant, disagreeable, or hazardous conditions; the degree to which such conditions are experienced; the frequency and duration of the exposure; the adequacy of protective clothing and gear, safety devices, and safe trade practices; and the possible effects on the workers. 

Work is usually performed on concrete floors in industrial shop areas around machinery.  Workers are exposed to dirt, dust, grease, odors, smoke, gases, and high noise levels.  Sanding, grinding or welding duties require the wearing of goggles, respirator, welding mask, apron or gloves.  Workers are exposed to possible burns, eye injury from infrared and ultra violet rays, and cuts, bruises, abrasions, and electric shock.

Working conditions at grade 10 are the same as those described at the grade 8 level.  Therefore, this factor is not grade-determining.

Summary

In order to warrant evaluation to a grade level, the job must fully meet the level described; i.e., it must meet the full intent of the whole job.  In conclusion, the appellant’s job does not fully meet the description for grade 10 because it must meet the full intent of the whole job for all four factors which, as defined by the JGS, includes working on a major system such as body frames, as grade 10 mechanics repair damage to mainframes and body structural members such as door posts, door frames, skeletal frame work, and main support members.  His work does not meet this threshold.  Therefore, the highest level of the appellant’s work equates to the grade 8 level.

Evaluation using the 8852 JGS

Skill and knowledge

Grade 8 aircraft workers are able to recognize a wide variety of parts and components such as gaskets, couplings, control cables, gear boxes and flight control surfaces.  They know where these parts and components are installed and the methods of removal and installation so that parts are not damaged or misaligned.  They are able to determine when parts and components may be cleaned and reinstalled or must be replaced by examining for visual evidence of wear, damage, or improper repairs.  Grade 8 workers are able to read and understand specific directions including disassembly, assembly, and adjustment directions for tasks such as replacing control cables and pulleys, lacing in fuel bladders, and reinstalling hydraulic lines, air ducts, and inspection plates.  Grade 8 workers have skill in the care and use of hand and power tools used in aircraft work.  They select the appropriate tool for the job; e.g., determining whether to use pneumatic wrench, speed wrench, ratchet wrench, or end wrenches, and the pattern of tightening and amount of torque to apply to assure a solid connection without overstressing any parts.  Grade 8 workers know the operations and functions of a number of less complex systems and perform functional checks after installation.  Workers at this level have skill in locating and correcting such problems as improper travel, or excessive friction or play between parts. They also have skill in the use of measuring instruments such as torque wrenches, micrometers, go-no-go gauges, multimeters, feeler gauges and tensionmeters.  Workers at this level have knowledge of the operational and maintenance records, both manual and automated, required for the aircraft and have knowledge of the terminology and format to report work they have performed.

In addition to knowledge of a wide variety of parts, components, and less complex assemblies required by grade 8 aircraft workers, grade 10 aircraft mechanics have knowledge of the makeup, operation, installation, and adjustment of a variety of major interrelated and/or integrated aircraft systems, subsystems, and assemblies such as fuel and hydraulic systems, flight control systems, instrumentation systems, engine(s), landing gear assemblies, airframe, and control surfaces.  Because of the complicated ways in which these major assemblies, systems, and surfaces are installed, fit, and work together, grade 10 mechanics must have more ability than grade 8 workers to rig, function test, or troubleshoot the systems; determine when they are operating properly or whether portions of the system must be repaired or replaced; and the type and extent of adjustment and alignment needed.  Grade 10 mechanics have skill in the use of standard and specialized tools and test equipment of the trade including fixtures, templates, scales, test stands and external power sources. They also have skill in reading and understanding data and settings from cockpit instruments and gauges. They know activity supply procedures to be able to initiate requisitions for needed parts and supplies and have a thorough knowledge of the publication order system to obtain the most up-to-date technical manuals and to propose changes to publications when they find a discrepancy.

Contrary to the appellant’s rationale, grade 8 aircraft worker’s assignments are not “limited to component removal and installation.” The 8852 JGS states grade 8 “work assignments at this level include the disassembly of aircraft or major components for overhaul or modification.”  Grade 8 workers also “install, align, and adjust less complex aircraft systems, subsystems, assemblies and components such as ejection seats, nuclear shielding, or similar self-contained systems that have few adjustments and little interaction with other systems.”  The distinction between the grade 8 and 10 levels is the complexity of the systems overhauled or repaired, with the grade 10 level involving “major interrelated and/or integrated aircraft systems, subsystems, and assemblies such as fuel and hydraulic systems, flight control systems, instrumentation systems, engine(s), landing gear assemblies, airframe, and control surfaces.”  The electromechanical and hydraulic systems on the forklifts repaired and/or rebuilt by the appellant fall materially short of the complexity of such systems and, thus, they do not require application of the depth and breadth of skill and knowledge required for work creditable at the grade 10 level.

Responsibility

Grade 8 aircraft workers receive detailed oral instructions and written work orders from the supervisor, lead mechanic, or a higher grade employee.  On routine assignments, they determine work methods and the use of tools and equipment on their own.  Judgments and decisions at this level are guided by clearly described procedures and instructions, and the work consists of recurring steps involved in the disassembly or reassembly of parts, subassemblies, and larger components.  The work is spot-checked during progress, and the supervisor or a higher graded worker is available for assistance.  Completed work is checked for compliance with instructions, specifications, and standardized shop practices and procedures.  New assignments are performed under close review.

Compared to the limited repair and disassembly work performed according to specific instructions at the grade 8 level, aircraft mechanics at the grade 10 level independently determine the nature of trouble and extent of adjustment or repair required on a number of major aircraft systems.  They receive work assignments from a supervisor or higher grade mechanic (i.e., crew chief or plane captain) in the form of oral or written instructions or work orders.  They may debrief pilots and aircrew, and check operation logs for reports of malfunctions to determine if repairs are needed.  Mechanics at this level use judgment to determine the tools, methods, and techniques to complete work assignment. 

In his rationale, the appellant emphasizes “[a]ll work is done with no supervision or direction/assistance from higher level wage grade mechanics.” This issue is directly addressed in the 8852 JGS which states:  “Situations in which the aircraft mechanic may work with no technical supervision are not grade controlling in themselves.  There must be a commensurate increase in responsibility as well as skill and knowledge.”  Since the appellant does not work on systems of grade 10 complexity, this factor also fails to meet the grade 10 level.

Physical effort and Working conditions do not have grade-level impact as they are the same at both the grade 8 and 10 levels.

Summary

Based on the foregoing analysis, the highest level of the appellant’s work evaluable by this JGS equates to the grade 8 level.

Decision

The appellant’s job is properly classified as Electromotive Equipment Worker, WG-5876-8.

Back to Top