Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Veteran’s Benefits Administration
Atlanta, Georgia
Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
11/30/2016
Date
The claimant seeks to file a leave claim concerning the Veterans Service Representative position she occupied with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Atlanta, Georgia. She asserts that she “was denied [her] total number of sick hours that [she] earned as a federal employee by the Atlanta VARO.” We received the claim on September 12, 2016. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
Section 7121(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code (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).
Documentation obtained by OPM (i.e., Standard Form 50 showing the claimant’s bargaining unit status in block 37) shows she occupied a bargaining unit position during the period covered by the claim. The Master Agreement between VA and the American Federation of Government Employees, National Veterans Affairs Council of Locals, covering the claimant during her employment with the agency, and in effect during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude leave issues from the NGP (Article 43 of the CBA in effect in 2011). Therefore 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 the VA 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 VA.
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.