Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code

---

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


07/20/2015

---

Date

The claimant seeks payment for 222 hours and 35 minutes of unpaid overtime for work performed from December 2013 to December 2014 while employed as a Lead Budget Analyst, GS-560-12, with the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Department of the Army (DA), in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.  Although the claimant does not specify the basis for her claim, since she is designated as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and does not dispute this designation, she is therefore covered under the title 5 overtime provisions applicable to exempt employees. We received the claim on February 10, 2015.  For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.

OPM has authority to adjudicate compensation and leave claims for many Federal employees under the provisions of section 3702(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.).  However, section 178.102(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), indicates that the claimant’s employing agency must review and issue a written decision on a compensation claim before it is submitted to OPM for adjudication.  The claimant is responsible for preserving the claim period by proving the signed, written claim was filed within the applicable statute of limitations.  See 5 CFR 178.104.  The information provided by the claimant with her request does not show she has filed a signed, written claim with the DA component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that she has received such a decision.  Nevertheless, we may render a decision on this claim in its entirety based on lack of jurisdiction.

Section 7121(a)(1) of title 5, U. S. C., directs that except as provided elsewhere in the statute, the grievance procedures in a negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) shall be the exclusive administrative remedy for resolving matters that fall within the coverage of the CBA.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found the plain language of 5 U.S.C.§ 7121(a)(1) to be clear, and as such, limits the administrative resolution of a Federal employee’s grievance to the negotiated procedures set forth in the CBA.  Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d 1220, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  Further, the Federal Circuit also found that all matters not specifically excluded from the grievance process by the CBA fall within the coverage of the CBA.  Id. at 1231.  As such, OPM cannot assert jurisdiction over the compensation or leave claims of Federal employees who are or were subject to a negotiated grievance procedure (NGP) under a CBA between the employee’s agency and labor union for any time during the claim period, unless the matter is or was specifically excluded from the CBA’s NGP.  See 5 CFR 178.101(b).

Information provided by the claimant (i.e., Standard Form 50, block 37) shows she occupied a bargaining unit position during the period of the claim. The claimant believes that she was part of the collective bargaining unit “though [she] did not pay union dues.”[1]  Further, she asserts the “review of the NGP leads [her] to believe the matter is beyond the scope of the NGP.”  However, the CBA for Appropriated Fund Employees Under Public Law 95-454 between The United States Army, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and Local 1052, American Federation of Government Employees, covering the claimant during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP (Article 13).  Therefore, contrary to the claimant’s assertion regarding the absence of provisions established by the agreement, since the CBA does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP, this claim must be construed as covered by the NGP the claimant was subject to during the claim period.  Accordingly, OPM has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim.  As is clear in Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the fact that the claimant is no longer employed by DA does not remove the Civil Service Reform Act’s jurisdictional bar for claims covered by the CBA arbitration and grievance procedures that arose during and from her employment with the U.S. Department of the Army.

This settlement is final.  No further administrative review is available within OPM.  Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant’s right to bring an action in an appropriate United States court.

---

 

Back to Top