Skip to page navigation
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content

You have reached a collection of archived material.

The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.


Office of the General Counsel

Matter of: [xxx]
File Number: 003385
Date: August 10, 1999

OPM Contact: Jo-Ann Chabot

The claimant seeks reconsideration of a claims settlement decision (Z-2869595) that the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued on May 8, 1995.

In its decision, the GAO found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's claims for a retroactive Alaska wage differential and retained pay at the rate he formerly received in Alaska because the claimant was covered by a collective bargaining agreement and his claims were not specifically excluded from the negotiated grievance procedure. The GAO based its decision on 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)(1) which requires collective bargaining agreements to include procedures for settling grievances and makes these procedures the exclusive means for resolving grievances within the agreement's coverage. The GAO also based its decision Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F. 2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990) where the court of appeals held that section 7121(a)(1) makes a grievance procedure the exclusive means of resolving grievances subject to that procedure.

We have reviewed the authorities cited in the GAO decision and agree with the GAO's findings and conclusions. Accordingly, the GAO decision, Z-2869595 (May 8, 1995), is affirmed.

This determination is final. No further administrative review is available within OPM. Nothing in this settlement limits the employee's right to bring an action in an appropriate United States Court.

Control Panel