Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Infrastructure Enabling and Provisioning Division
Columbus, Ohio
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/12/2017
Date
The claimant seeks to file a compensation claim concerning the Information Technology Specialist position he occupies with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in Columbus, Ohio. He asserts that he was denied pay rate retention rights after receiving a management directed reassignment. We received the claim on November 28, 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 provided by the claimant (i.e., Standard Form 50 showing the claimant’s bargaining unit status in block 37) shows he occupied a bargaining unit position during the period covered by the claim. The Master Agreement between the Defense Logistics Agency and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1148 covering the claimant during his employment with the agency, and in effect during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude pay issues from the NGP (Article 36 of the CBA in effect in 2013). 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).
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.