Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
General Leonard Wood Army
Community Hospital
Army MEDCOM Regional Health
Command
U.S. Departments of the Army
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
12/23/2020
Date
The claimant is a former Federal civilian employee of the Logistics Division, General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital, Army MEDCOM Regional Health Command, U.S. Department of the Army, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
The claimant disputes the agency’s decision to deny him a retention incentive. He requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) require the agency to pay him the amount of $10,556.51. OPM received the claim request on September 10, 2020. 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 section 178.101(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Documentation provided by the agency (i.e., Standard Form 50 showing the claimant’s bargaining unit status in block 37) shows the claimant occupied a bargaining unit position during the period of the claim. Furthermore, Article 11, titled Grievance Procedure, of the CBA between Department of the Army Headquarters, USA Medical Department Activity and National Federation of Federal Employees Local 738, dated July 26, 1993, covering the claimant during his employment with the agency and in effect during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude compensation claims (i.e., retention incentive) from the NGP. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)(1) and Mudge v. United States, this claim must be construed as covered by the NGP the claimant was subject to during the claim period and OPM has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim. Thus, the claim is denied.
Although OPM lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, we note that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5754(d)(1), payment of a retention bonus is contingent upon the employee entering into a written service agreement with the agency. Furthermore, 5 CFR 575.307(b)(1) requires an authorized agency official to review and approve the retention incentive determination before the agency pays the incentive to the employee. The Retention Incentive Service Agreement provided by the claimant, signed solely by him on May 26, 2016, does not contain a signature by an authorized agency official. Therefore, based on the information provided, the claimant has failed to establish the liability of the United States and his right to payment as required by 5 CFR 178.105.
For the reasons stated above, the claim is denied.
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.