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


01/03/2022

---

Date

As provided in section S7-8 of the Operating Manual:  Federal Wage System, 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 specified in section 532.705(f) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (address provided in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

The appellant’s job is currently graded as Barber Supervisor (Instructor), WS-7603-08, but he believes it should be graded at the WS-11 level.  His job (job description (JD) number 297362) is assigned to the Barber Shop, Directorate of Correctional Programs, Military Correctional Complex (Complex), U.S. Army Corrections Command, U.S. Department of the Army, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

General issues

To support the upgrading of his job, the appellant identifies other U.S. Department of the Army jobs that are classified similarly as jobs assigned to his Barber Shop organization but he asserts that those other jobs perform significantly less complex duties than his organization, e.g., the other jobs do not perform chemical services on hair, provide vocational training, or work in a correctional environment.  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 any statements made by the appellant only insofar as they are relevant to making a comparison to the appropriate JGSs and guidelines.

In addition, the appellant states in his request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM):

Because the OPM Standard for Barbering, 7603 only indicates a Grade 7, we are asking that our agency or OPM recognize as noted by [Civilian Human Resources Agency] that the level of skills and knowledge needed and being taught in our schools, by [Kansas Board of Barbering (KBOB)] regulation, is more than that of a barber who cuts hair and shaves clients.  We are asking to have a “Barber-Stylist” Grade 9 be recognized as someone trained in chemical services added to the 7603 series Standard, and perhaps another level of “Barber Instructor” Grade 10 or 11 as well.

Inherent in the appellant’s rationale is the belief his job is misclassified because his duties exceed the work described in the 1974 issuance of the JGS for Barbering, 7603.  He also asserts the JGS is outdated due to its failure to mention work involving chemical services.  However, a prevailing rate employee may not appeal the standards established for the job (5 CFR 532.701).  All occupations change over time but the fundamental duty and responsibility patterns and qualifications required in an occupation normally remain stable.  Therefore, careful application of the appropriate JGSs to the work performed by the appellant should yield the correct grade for his job.

Job information

The Complex contains two military correctional facilities, i.e., the United States Disciplinary Barracks (DB), the maximum-security prison that houses approximately 400 male service members convicted of Uniform Code of Military Justice violations with sentences of over 10 years, and the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF), the medium-security prison that houses approximately 300 male service members with sentences under 10 years.  Each prison contains an “inside” barbershop which additionally serves as a licensed barber college to provide vocational instruction to inmates.  The Complex also contains two “outside” barbershops.  The appellant serves as the first-level supervisor for two Barber Supervisor (Instructor), WS-7603-06, jobs.  Each WS-06 supervisor is assigned supervisory responsibility over one inside barbershop/school and one outside barbershop.  As he is responsible for the Complex’s Barber Shop organization, the appellant sets overall goals, carries out program assignments, resolves conflicts that arise, coordinates work with others, and interprets policies on own initiative.  In addition, he is responsible for workload production, equipment and supplies, safety, control and accountability procedures, and vocational training programs.  His job requires obtaining and maintaining licensure as a barber and barber-instructor.

The appellant is responsible for supervising two WS-06 supervisors and the subordinate inmates (hereinafter referred to as “workers”) assigned to work details at the inside and outside barbershops.  With 12 chairs, the inside shops perform barbering services for approximately 35 to 40 patrons (i.e., the inmates, soldiers, or staff) a day.  Currently, four workers are assigned to the DB and three workers are assigned to the JRCF.  With four chairs, the outside shops perform barbering services for approximately 30 patrons (i.e., the Fort Leavenworth community) a day.  Each outside barbershop is assigned four workers.  The WS-06 supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the workers and barbershop operations including assigning work, observing workers throughout the detail and checking completed services for quality of workmanship, controlling attendance, counseling workers on performance- and conduct-related issues, taking disciplinary actions when necessary, and identifying additional training needs for workers.  The appellant’s duties include, but are not limited to, ensuring equipment, supplies, and materials are available and operational to meet organizational needs; providing recommended plans of action for deficiencies identified during internal reviews; preparing budgets and requests for funds involving barbershop operations; monitoring and preparing a variety of production reports; implementing changes in procedures, work area layouts, and operations to simplify operations or improve effectiveness; and accident prevention and establishing occupational health standards at the facilities.  To supervise the WS-06 supervisors and subordinate workers, the appellant evaluates subordinate supervisors and reviews monthly worker evaluations, interviews candidates for vacancies, makes selections for details, takes disciplinary measures, and makes decisions on technical and administrative problems presented by subordinate supervisors.

The appellant is responsible for the Complex’s vocational barber college programs, which has the objective of preparing inmates (hereinafter referred to as “students”) to pass a State Board examination and obtain a license to practice barbering.  To complete the program, students are required to complete 1,500 clock hours at the inside barbershop, finish written assignments, maintain an average of 80 percent on all tests, and pass the final written and practical examinations with an average of 80 percent.  The WS-06 supervisors administer the day-to-day program operations by providing lectures and discussions, demonstrations, group and individual instructions, etc., at their respective college.  They instruct students based on curriculum requirements established by KBOB, the agency responsible for licensing barber schools in Kansas and establishing the licensure process for students.  Instructional topics include, but are not limited to, infection control, general anatomy and physiology, basics of chemistry, treatment of hair and scalp, haircutting and styling, chemical texture services, and hair coloring and lightening.  The program also provides training and mentoring to inmates/licensed barbers with the objective of preparing them to pass a State Board examination to be licensed as a barber-instructor.  While the WS-06 supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day classroom operations, the appellant is responsible for monitoring the blocks of instruction provided by subordinate employees to ensure compliance with established curriculum policies and procedures, evaluating presentations and quality of instruction, ensuring training records are maintained accurately, and counseling students to motivate those with attitude problems or who are not responding appropriately to vocational assignments.

In addition, the appellant performs nonsupervisory duties identical to those performed by workers assigned to the barbershops.  He cuts hair for inmates assigned to the Special Housing Unit or in protective custody, death sentence, or pretrial status who are not allowed to have contact with general population inmates.

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 by his JD are adequate for classification purposes, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision.  To help decide this appeal, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellant and a telephone interview with his first-level supervisor, the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Correctional Programs (a GS-006-12 Supervisory Correctional Program Specialist position).  In reaching our job grading decision, we carefully considered all information gained from these interviews, as well as the written information furnished by the appellant and his agency.

Occupational series, title, and standards determination

The agency classified the appellant’s job as Barber Supervisor, WS-7603, and graded it using the JGS for Barbering, 7603, and the JGS for Supervisors, which provides instructions for grading mixed supervisory-nonsupervisory jobs.  Mixed jobs are evaluated by first grading the supervisory and nonsupervisory work separately.  The final grade is then determined by selecting the supervisory or the nonsupervisory grade which results in the highest pay rate for the job.  The occupational code for a supervisory job is normally the same as the code for the kind of work that is supervised.  We concur with the agency on its selection of the Barbering, 7603 occupational code.

All aspects of a job grading standard (i.e., coverage, regular and recurring duties, grading factors, and the full intent of the JGS) must be fully met for jobs to be evaluated under the JGS for Supervisors.  Appropriate application of the JGS requires full and careful analysis of all relevant factors.  The central coverage criteria in that standard, i.e., the ongoing requirement that supervisors perform supervisory duties on a substantially full-time and continuing basis, are stringent.  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 23, Article number 23-07 (October 1999), “substantially full-time” means performing supervisory duties to such an extent that, for all intents and purposes, it is considered to be comparable to full-time or 100 percent.  Jobs that perform supervisory functions on less than a substantially full-time basis (i.e., less than 85 percent) do not meet the basic criteria for coverage and cannot be evaluated under the JGS for Supervisors.

According to the appellant’s JD, which he has stated is complete and accurate, supervisory duties occupy 50 percent of his worktime.  However, duties and responsibilities assigned to a job flow from the mission assigned to the organization in which they are found.  The jobs created to perform that assigned mission must be considered in relation to one another, i.e., each job reflects a part of the work assigned to the organization.  Therefore, the duties and responsibilities assigned to the appellant’s job and performed by him may not be considered in a vacuum.  In this case, as confirmed by the JD, he spends the remaining 50 percent of his worktime on duties related to the Complex’s vocational barber college programs.  According to the JD, he “[f]ormulates, establishes, and implements instructional and vocational training portions of the Kansas Certified Vocational Barber College curricula...”  As previously mentioned, the WS-06 supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day classroom operations although the appellant may occasionally provide instruction in the subordinate supervisor’s absence.  Although his JD allocates 50 percent of the worktime to supervisory duties and the remaining 50 percent to duties related to the vocational barber college programs, we note the latter duty also involves performing work characteristic of a supervisor such as monitoring blocks of instruction provided by subordinate employees to ensure compliance with established curriculum policies and procedures, evaluating presentations and quality of instruction, ensuring training records are maintained accurately, etc.  In addition, our discussion with the appellant confirmed that the students accepted into the barber program require significant oversight and, as a result, he must also exercise quasi-supervisory responsibilities over students to counsel and motivate those with attitude problems or who are not responding appropriately to vocational assignments, address performance and conduct issues, and observe progress.  We also conclude the basic purpose of the appellant’s job and reason for its existence is to function as a second-level supervisor over the staff of Federal civilian and inmate workers assigned to the Barber Shop.  The percentage of worktime allocated to supervisory duties on his JD, at 50 percent, would constitute less than the 85 percent threshold required for application of the JGS for Supervisors.  However, when combined with the percentage of time spent on the supervision of work and oversight relating to the Complex’s vocational barber college programs, we find the appellant is functioning as a supervisor within the meaning of the JGS and his job clearly meets coverage requirements for application of the JGS for Supervisors.

The work supervised by the appellant clearly involves trades and practices covered by the JGS for Barbering, 7603, which describes cutting and arranging hair on the head and face.  Work in the 7603 occupation requires knowledge of barbering, and skill in shaving, cutting, and styling hair, mustaches, and beards by applying barbering techniques and tools.  As discussed later in this decision, we determined the final grade of the appellant’s job based on his supervisory work, which resulted in the highest pay rate.  Supervisory jobs are identified by the job title of the occupation selected followed by the supervisory designation.  Therefore, the proper pay system, occupational code, and title prescribed for the appellant’s job is Barber Supervisor, WS-7603.  The parenthetical title is at the agency’s discretion.

Grade determination

When both supervisory and nonsupervisory work are a regular and recurring part of the job, the final grade of the job is the supervisory or nonsupervisory grade resulting in the higher pay rate for the job.  The JGS for Supervisors states that where the nonsupervisory work personally performed by a supervisor is at a higher grade than the work done by the employees supervised, the supervisory work and the personally performed work are graded separately against the appropriate JGSs.  The final grade of such a job is then determined by selecting the nonsupervisory or supervisory grade resulting in the highest pay rate for the employee.  Accordingly, we will examine the appellant’s nonsupervisory and supervisory work separately.

Evaluation using the JGS for Barbering, 7603

The appellant’s personally performed work is evaluated by the JGS for Barbering, 7603, which provides four grading factors:  Skill and Knowledge, Responsibility, Physical Effort, and Working Conditions.  Grade 7 is the only level described by the standard.  Grade 7 barbers must have skill and knowledge such as shaving, cutting, and styling straight, wavy, curly and kinky hair, and mustaches; skin and hair conditioning procedures such as shampooing and rinsing, massages, and hair tonic treatments; and haircuts such as full and half crowns, trims and long, pompadours, and modern types.  Work at this level also requires ability to visualize barbering needs of the patron by such physical features as face contour, head shape, hairline, hair length and density, or bald conditions.

The agency credited the appellant’s personally performed work at Grade 7, and we concur based on our analysis of the grading criteria.  His work cannot exceed Grade 7 unless the barbering services he personally provides require significantly more knowledge and skill than that described by the JGS, which they do not.  Therefore, the appellant’s personally performed work is evaluated at the Grade 7 level.

Evaluation using the JGS for Supervisors

The grading plan for wage grade supervisors consists of three factors:  (1) Nature of Supervisory Responsibility; (2) Level of Work Supervised; and (3) Scope of Work Operations Supervised.

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 2, which describes supervisors who are responsible for supervising workers directly or through subordinate leaders and/or supervisors in accomplishing the work of an organizational segment or group.  Supervisors in Situation 2 differ from supervisors in Situation 1 primarily in planning work operations of greater scope and complexity; determining the sequence, priority, and time for the performance of particular operations within the limits of broader work schedules and time limits; and exercising greater administrative authority.  In addition to the duties described in Situation 1, supervisors in Situation 2 perform the following:

Planning

• Plan use of subordinate workers equipment, facilities, materials on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis;
• Establish deadlines, priorities, and work sequences, and plan work assignments based on general work schedules, methods, and policies set by higher level supervisors;
• Coordinate work with supporting or related work functions controlled by other supervisors;
• Determine the number and types of workers needed to accomplish specific projects;
• Redirect individual workers and resources to accomplish unanticipated work (e.g., work resulting from “open and inspect” types of work orders);
• Inform higher level supervisors of the need to revise work schedules and re-estimate labor and other resources; and
• Participate with their superiors in the initial planning of current and future work schedules, budget requests, staffing needs, estimates, and recommendations as to scheduling projected work. 

Work Direction

• Investigate work related problems such as excessive costs or low productivity and determine causes;
• Implement corrective actions within their authority to resolve work problems; and
• Recommend solutions to staffing problems, engineering requirements, and work operations directed by other supervisors.

Administration

• Plan and establish overall leave schedule;
• Determine training needs of subordinates and arrange for its accomplishment, set performance standards, and make formal appraisals of subordinate work performance; and
• Initiate recommendations for promotion or reassignment of subordinates.

After careful consideration, we concur with the agency’s crediting of Situation 2.  Because he is responsible for the Complex’s Barber Shop organization, the appellant performs the planning, work direction, and administration elements described under Situation 1 (see criteria in pages 8 and 9 of the JGS for Supervisors) and Situation 2.  He performs the Planning elements described under Situation 2 such as planning use of subordinate workers equipment, facilities, and materials.  He also establishes deadlines, priorities, and work sequences, as well as plans work assignments.  For example, he maintains schedules for all facilities of the Barber Shop organization to ensure adequate supervisor-and-worker coverage, adjusting schedules if a subordinate supervisor is on leave, training, or whenever necessary.  He ensures subordinate supervisors perform assigned work adequately and timely, e.g., confirming training hours are tracked to ensure students can complete the licensing examination in a timely manner.  Based on input provided by subordinate supervisors, the appellant schedules and arranges for administering of the State Board examinations for licensure as a barber or barber-instructor.  He also coordinates with supporting or related work functions controlled by other supervisors.  For example, when subordinate supervisors notify him of issues involving military soldiers assigned to one of the facilities of the Barber Shop organization, the appellant is responsible for communicating with supervisors of military soldiers to resolve issues of conduct, behavior, or performance.  In addition, he determines the number and types of workers needed to accomplish specific projects, re-directing individual workers and resources to accomplish unanticipated work.  If one of the facilities is scheduled for inspection, he reviews requests for additional work time for workers to prepare the facility for inspection (e.g., additional cleaning or painting).  He provides justifications for requests involving additional labor, equipment, supplies, and other resources required for the operation of all facilities of the Barber Shop organization.  The appellant’s organization has two different fund sources, i.e., non-appropriated funds for the operation of all barbershops and the agency’s appropriated funds for the operation of the schools.  He works closely with his supervisor in the initial planning of current and future work schedules, budget resources, staffing needs, estimates, and recommendations as to the scheduling of projected work.

Regarding the Work Direction elements, the appellant investigates work-related problems such as excessive costs or low productivity and determines causes.  He regularly inspects all four facilities of the Barber Shop organization, reviewing internal operations to ensure compliance with operational and custodial regulations, directives, policies, and procedures.  He ensures all facilities are well kept and meet standards of safety and sanitation.  He corrects deficiencies identified during inspections.  To ensure facilities continue to operate at a profit, he regularly reports to his supervisor regarding the costs and savings from the Barber Shop organization cutting hair for inmates of the Complex.  In addition, the appellant implements corrective actions within his authority to resolve work problems and recommends solutions to staffing problems and work operations.  He is responsible for the accident prevention and occupational health standards at his facilities.  When necessary, he implements changes in procedures, work area layout, and operations to simplify the operations or improve effectiveness.  The appellant resolves issues elevated to him from subordinate supervisors including, but not limited to, missing equipment or tools, worker absences, and performance- or conduct-related issues of workers, students, and soldiers.

The Administration elements described under Situation 2 do not all directly apply to supervisors of inmate workers.  While the appellant establishes the organization’s overall leave schedule, determines training needs of subordinate supervisors and workers, sets performance standards, and makes formal appraisals of subordinate work performance, his duties and responsibilities do not encompass all the administrative responsibilities normally handled by supervisors of Federal employees.  For example, as a supervisor in a correctional facility, he does not initiate recommendations for promotion or reassignment of subordinate workers.  However, his role is offset by the responsibility for work comparable to that performed by traditional supervisors as well as his significant role in training, counseling, motivating, and maintaining discipline and security in relation to the predominant inmate workforce.  The appellant reviews monthly evaluations provided by subordinate supervisors on the work performance of inmates.  Workers assigned to the outside barbershop are paid 20 percent of the daily intake with a maximum of $20 per day, but the starting pay of workers assigned to the inside barbershop is 80 cents per hour.  The appellant reviews and concurs with pay increases recommended by subordinate supervisors for the pay of inside barbershop workers, who may earn an increase of 5 cents per hour each month based on individual performance.  When the facility has a vacancy for a work detail, he and the subordinate supervisor review the list of eligible “applicants” (i.e., inmates who are licensed barbers assigned to that prison) and consider factors such as the individual’s speed, quality, and time remaining on his prison sentence.  After interviewing applicants, he and the subordinate supervisor make a selection.  In addition, the appellant observes workers closely throughout the work detail, identifying additional training needs or taking disciplinary measures when necessary, such as warnings, reprimands, or written disciplinary reports involving behavior or conduct issues.  He advises subordinate supervisors concerning the removal of workers and determines whether a particular individual should be removed either temporarily or permanently from the work detail.  Removal of a worker requires concurrence from higher-level officials.

In Situation 3, supervisors 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.

Administration

• 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.

Situation 3 is not met.  We find the appellant’s situation characteristic of Situation 2, which describes supervisors responsible for supervising workers directly or through subordinate supervisors in accomplishing work of an organizational unit or group such as the Complex’s Barber Shop organization.  His situation does not meet Situation 3, which describes work operations of broader scope, volume, and complexity to require subordinate supervisors in at least two separate organizational groups.  Instead, his two subordinate supervisors are assigned to the DB and JRCF barbershops/colleges and outside barbershops, which are facilities falling within the same Barber Shop organizational unit.  Furthermore, the appellant does not perform all of the planning, work direction, and administration elements described under Situation 3.  For instance, he does not have responsibility for Planning elements related to allocating resources and distributing work across multiple organizational segments or groups or initiating changes that would modify or deviate overall work schedules or affect work operations controlled by supervisors not under his control.  Regarding the Work Direction elements, he is not responsible for maintaining balanced workloads by shifting assignments, workers, and other resources, or participating with management officials and/or engineering personnel to develop qualitative and/or quantitative work standards.  He also does not exercise the elements of Administration, e.g., to recommend promotion or reassignment of subordinate supervisors or serve as a management representative at hearings, meetings, and negotiations involving labor management relations.  Therefore, we credit Factor 1 with Situation 2.

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 extraordinary 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, through his two subordinate WS-06 supervisors, is responsible for the supervision of workers assigned to the inside and outside barbershops.  Workers perform barbering services such as cutting, shampooing, and shaving of hair and massaging of the face.  Workers at the inside and outside barbershops are not permitted to perform chemical services on patrons.  We conclude the appellant is responsible for the oversight of workers performing work in a single trade, i.e., Barbering, 7603.  Because inmates work under job descriptions and pay levels different from the Federal Wage System (FWS), their equivalent FWS grades must be determined based upon comparison of their duties and responsibilities against OPM JGSs.  The work performed by subordinate workers is identical to the appellant’s personally performed work, which we evaluated at the Grade- 7 level based on comparison to the 7603 JGS.  We thus credit the base level of work supervised at the Grade 7 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 the 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-2, supervisors have first or second level supervisory and decision authority over an organizational segment which typically has been established on the basis of being a distinct work function or mission; or a designated geographic location or work area.  Supervisors make routine decisions regarding execution of policy which has been interpreted or established by the next higher level.  At this level, subordinate supervisors and/or leaders may be necessary to accomplish work operations.  Supervisors at this level react to variations in the workplace and maintain a balanced workload between subordinate work groups, making adjustments in workload as necessary.  Decisions typically involve the work or assignments and how they are completed.

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.

The appellant’s job fully meets Level A-2.  He has second level supervisory and decision authority over an organizational unit established as a distinct work function or mission.  The agency’s organizational chart shows the Barber Shop is the level or organizational unit with a mission that is clear and distinct from other organizational units, and the DB and JRCF barbershops/colleges and the outside barbershops fall within that organization.  Similar to Level A-2, the appellant has been delegated supervisory and decision authority for the overall Barber Shop organization.  Because he supervises two WS-06 supervisors, he does not utilize several subordinate supervisors and leaders through structured working relationships among subordinate groups of employees as expected at Level A-3.  Consequently, we evaluate this subfactor at Level A-2 and credit 45 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.

The appellant’s job is an exact match to Level B-1, which describes supervisors directing the work of subordinates in accomplishing an assigned function in one or more similar or related occupations at grades 1-7.  As previously discussed under Factor 2, we credited the base level of work supervised at the Grade 7 level.  The job does not meet Level B-2 which describes supervisors who direct the work of subordinates in two or more dissimilar or unrelated occupations at grades 1-7.  Therefore, we evaluate this subfactor at Level B-1 and credit 25 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 at this level are of a limited duration.

At Level C-2, subordinate employees are located in work groups of varying sizes at numerous job sites within large military bases (e.g., air rework facilities, supply depots, shipyards, and comparable Federal facilities).  Employees or work groups at Level C-2 may on occasion work outside of the commuting area or across State lines.  Work assignments at this level are typically on an ongoing basis and are accomplished within several weeks or months.

Characteristic of Level C-1, the appellant is responsible for two inside barbershops, which also serve as barber colleges, and two outside barbershops located outside of the prison but within the military base.  Therefore, we evaluate this subfactor at Level C-1 and credit 5 points.

The total credit for Factor 3 is 75 points, which equates to Level B (70 to 110 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 2, the intersection point for Grade 7 level of work supervised and Level B scope of work operations supervised is the Grade 7 level.

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 this 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 some work situations, special staffing requirements may impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for job design, job engineering, work scheduling, training, counseling, motivating, and maintaining security than that which is normally encountered in orienting, training, and supervising subordinates in accomplishing work.  For example, special employment programs such as work-study, rehabilitation, and others, may be geared toward utilizing employees with very low level skills and inappropriate or no work experience.  Other “staffing” situations, such as those at correctional institutions, also may involve exceptionally difficult attitudinal, motivational, control, and security problems.  An upward grade adjustment may be made in determining the grade of a supervisor directly responsible or indirectly responsible (through subordinate supervisors) for work operations involving such exceptional conditions that affect the majority of the subordinate workforce when all of the following are present:  (a)  The special staffing circumstances, rather than being temporary or intermittent in duration, affect the responsibilities of the supervisor on a permanent and continuing basis; (b)  Job assignments, work tasks, training, security measures, and other supervisory actions must be tailored to fit these special circumstances for individual workers; and (c)  Counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring, and are essential to the effective handling of the special work situation.

The special demands grade adjustment does not automatically apply to all correctional institution supervisors, but only to those facing all three conditions specified.  Based on careful review of the record, we find the appellant’s job meets the criteria for an upward grade adjustment.  Because they are newly licensed barbers, subordinate workers generally bring entry-level skills into the work environment.  As a result, the appellant is responsible for ensuring job tasks, assignments, and training are designed in consideration of the skill levels of individual workers.  He regularly spends time with individual workers, observing them closely and constantly, to provide verbal instructions designed to improve their level of skill in the licensed field.  The appellant’s environment places more demands, especially in the technical oversight of workers, than would be expected outside the correctional institution where their counterparts typically hire skilled barbers for Federal civilian positions.  In addition, he plays a significant role in advising subordinate supervisors in counseling, motivating, and maintaining discipline and security of workers.  He reviews monthly evaluations which provide feedback from subordinate supervisors on a worker’s performance and behavior in the work environment.  He also regularly counsels and motivates individual workers with the goal of assisting rehabilitation and providing job skills.  If counseling and positive reinforcements are unsuccessful, the appellant and his subordinate supervisors take further disciplinary actions on workers, e.g., by removing them from work details at the barbershops and filing disciplinary reports.  Depending on the severity, some actions may be reviewed by the disciplinary board, who assigns punishments to inmates.  The appellant is responsible for the overall security and control of tools, parts, and materials used in all facilities of the Barber Shop organization.  Although soldiers guard inmates at the inside and outside barbershops, the work environment regularly brings workers into close contact with inmates/patrons, which poses opportunities for conflict and requires the appellant to maintain constant and continual vigilance to control the movement of inmates, maintain security of all facilities, and ensure safety of inmates and staff.  The actual supervision exercised by him is intensified due to other demands such as responsibility for supervising physically dispersed workers assigned across all facilities of the Barber Shop, as well as behavior issues typical of less motivated workers, e.g., those with longer sentences or newly incarcerated.

The above situations demonstrate the exceptional demands placed on the appellant, on a permanent and continuing basis, requiring responsibility for the tailoring of job assignments, work tasks, training, and security measures, and providing regular and recurring counseling and motivational activities.  Therefore, an upward adjustment from the WS-7 to WS-8 level is warranted.

Summary 

The JGS for Supervisors provides instructions for grading mixed supervisory-nonsupervisory jobs.  These jobs are evaluated by first grading the supervisory and nonsupervisory work separately.  The final grade is then determined by selecting the supervisory or nonsupervisory grade which results in the higher pay rate for the job.  Based on comparison of the representative hourly rates in FWS wage schedules for the appellant’s wage area for his supervisory and nonsupervisory work, his supervisory pay rate as a WS-08 is significantly higher than the nonsupervisory barbering Grade 7 work he performs.  Therefore, the final grade of his job is WS-08. 

Decision

The appellant’s job is properly graded as Barber Supervisor, WS-7603-08.  Parenthetical title at agency discretion.

 

 

Back to Top