Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Fair Labor Standards Act Decision
Under section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code
Laboratory Services Group
William J. Hughes Technical Center Office
Senior Vice President, Nexgen & Operations Planning
Chief Operating Officer
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Atlantic City, New Jersey
Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Merit System Audit and Compliance
10/31/2011
Date
As provided in section 551.708 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (
Introduction
On February 16, 2011, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Merit System Audit and Compliance received a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim from the claimant who seeks to have his exemption status changed from exempt to nonexempt. He states that when he entered the position on
Upon inquiring of management of the change, I was directed to our local group Human Resources Office. I questioned the change and was informed that the status was changed to Exempt because of my pay grade without reference to regulation or rule. No written explanation was given. HR would only respond to management, which forwarded the verbal response to me.
We have accepted and decided his claim under section 4(f) of the FLSA, as amended, codified at section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code (U.S.C.). In reaching our FLSA decision, we have carefully considered all information furnished by the claimant and additional documentation we received from his agency on
Jurisdiction
OPM has authority to adjudicate FLSA claims for Federal employees under the provisions of section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code (U.S.C.). OPM’s adjudication authority is an administrative remedy, not a judicial remedy. See 5
The claimant states: “I am not a member of the union though my SF50 [sic] states Bargaining Unit Status as “1075” in block 37, but I am not sure how this effects [sic] the determination of exemption status.” Union membership is not germane to determining claims settlement jurisdiction. What is germane in determining jurisdiction is that the claimant occupied a bargaining unit position covered by a CBA during the period of the claim. The CBA between FAA’s National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, now the William J. Hughes Technical Center, and the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1340, covering the claimant and in effect during the period of the claim does not specifically exclude FLSA overtime pay issues from the NGP (Article 30) covering the claimant. Therefore, the claimant’s FLSA 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.
Decision
The claim is denied based on lack of jurisdiction.