Washington DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Job Grading Appeal Decision
Under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code
Directorate of Correctional Programs
Military Correctional Complex
U.S. Army Corrections Command
U.S. Department of the Army
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
WS-7603-06
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
01/03/2022
Date
As provided in section S7-8 of the Operating Manual: Federal Wage System, this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government. There is no right of further appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions specified in section 532.705(f) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (addresses provided in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section H).
Introduction
The appellants’ job is currently graded as Barber Supervisor (Instructor), WS-7603-06, but they believe it should be graded at the WS-10 level. They occupy an identical additional job description (JD) number 297463 and are assigned to the Barber Shop, Directorate of Correctional Programs, Military Correctional Complex (Complex), U.S. Army Corrections Command, U.S. Department of the Army, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. We have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).
General issues
To support the upgrading of their job, the appellants identify other Department of the Army jobs that are classified at the same grade level as theirs but assert that those other jobs perform significantly less complex duties, e.g., the other jobs do not perform chemical services on hair, provide vocational training, or work in a correctional environment. By law, job grading decisions must be based solely upon a comparison between the actual duties and responsibilities of the job and appropriate job grading standards (JGSs) (5 U.S.C. 5346). Therefore, we may not compare the appellants’ job to other jobs as a basis for deciding their appeal. In adjudicating this appeal, our only concern is to make an independent decision on the proper grading of the job in question. Therefore, we have considered any statements made by the appellants only insofar as they are relevant to making a comparison to the appropriate JGSs and guidelines.
In addition, the appellants state in their request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM):
Because the OPM Standard for Barbering, 7603 only indicates a Grade 7, we are asking that our agency or OPM recognize as noted by [Civilian Human Resources Agency] that the level of skills and knowledge needed and being taught in our schools, by [Kansas Board of Barbering (KBOB)] regulation, is more than that of a barber who cuts hair and shaves clients. We are asking to have a “Barber-Stylist” Grade 9 be recognized as someone trained in chemical services added to the 7603 series Standard, and perhaps another level of “Barber Instructor” Grade 10 or 11 as well.
Inherent in the appellants’ rationale is the belief their job is graded incorrectly because their duties exceed the work described in the 1974 issuance of the JGS for Barbering, 7603. They also assert the JGS is outdated due to its failure to mention work involving chemical services. However, a prevailing rate employee may not appeal the standards established for the job (5 CFR 532.701). All occupations change over time, but the fundamental duty and responsibility patterns and qualifications required in an occupation normally remain stable. Therefore, careful application of the appropriate JGSs to the work performed by the appellants should yield the correct grade for their job. As discussed later in the decision, we evaluated the appellants’ job by application of other JGSs in addition to the 7603 JGS.
Job information
The appellants occupy a Barber Supervisor job at the Complex, which contains two military correctional facilities, i.e., the United States Disciplinary Barracks (DB), the maximum-security prison that houses approximately 400 male service members convicted of Uniform Code of Military Justice violations with sentences of over 10 years, and the Joint Regional Correctional Facility (JRCF), the medium-security prison that houses approximately 300 male service members with sentences under 10 years. Each prison contains an “inside” barbershop which additionally serves as a licensed barber college to provide vocational instruction to inmates. The Complex also contains two “outside” barbershops. The appellants are assigned supervision of one inside and outside barbershop, but they may work at any barbershop facility at the Complex in the event of the other’s absence. They are responsible for the overall shop administration, supervision of inmate workers, workload production, equipment and supplies, safety, and control and accountability procedures. The appellants are also responsible for the vocational training programs provided by their college. Their job requires obtaining and maintaining licensure as a barber and barber-instructor.
The appellants establish, formulate, and implement the vocational barber college program with the objective of preparing inmates (hereinafter referred to as “students”) to pass a State Board examination and obtain a license to practice barbering. To complete the program, students are required to complete 1,500 clock hours at the inside barbershop, finish written assignments, maintain an average of 80 percent on all tests, and pass the final written and practical examinations with an average of 80 percent. The appellants administer the program by providing lectures and discussions, demonstrations, group and individual instructions, etc., at their respective college. They instruct students based on curriculum requirements established by KBOB, the agency responsible for licensing barber schools in Kansas and establishing the licensure process for students. The appellants provide instruction in topics including, but not limited to, infection control, general anatomy and physiology, basics of chemistry, treatment of hair and scalp, haircutting and styling, chemical texture services, and hair coloring and lightening. They oversee and evaluate the practice work performed by students. In addition, the appellants train and mentor inmates/licensed barbers with the objective of preparing them to pass a State Board examination to be licensed as a barber-instructor.
Once a student completes training and obtains a barbering license, he may be invited to work in a paid position at either the inside or outside barbershop. The appellants estimate spending 50 percent of their time supervising the licensed barber inmates (hereinafter referred to as “workers”) and operations of their respective inside and outside barbershops. With 12 chairs, the inside shops perform barbering services for approximately 35 to 40 patrons (i.e., the inmates, soldiers, or staff) a day. Currently, four workers are assigned to the DB and three workers are assigned to the JRCF. With four chairs, the outside shops perform barbering services for approximately 30 patrons a day (i.e., the Fort Leavenworth community). Each outside barbershop is assigned four workers. The appellants’ supervisory work includes, but is not limited to, assigning work, observing workers throughout the detail and checking completed services for quality of workmanship, controlling attendance, counseling workers on performance- and conduct-related issues, taking disciplinary actions when necessary, and identifying additional training needs for workers. In addition, they establish performance pay levels, record work hours, and maintain records on and control equipment, tools, materials, and parts.
The appellants perform nonsupervisory duties identical to those performed by subordinate workers assigned to the barbershops. They estimate spending four hours every two weeks on cutting hair for inmates assigned to the Special Housing Unit or in protective custody, death sentence, or pretrial status who are not allowed to have contact with general population inmates.
The appellants’ official JD and other material of record furnish more information about their duties and responsibilities and how they are performed. We find the major duties as described by their JD are adequate for job grading purposes, and we incorporate it by reference into this decision. To help decide this appeal, we conducted a telephone audit with the appellants and a telephone interview with their first-level supervisor. In reaching our job grading decision, we carefully considered all information gained from these interviews, as well as the written information furnished by the appellants and their agency.
Occupational series, title, and standards determination
The agency graded the appellant’s job as Barber Supervisor, WS-7603, using the JGS for Barbering, 7603, and the JGS for Supervisors, which provides instructions for grading mixed supervisory-nonsupervisory jobs. Mixed jobs are evaluated by grading the supervisory and nonsupervisory work separately. The final grade is then determined by selecting the supervisory or the nonsupervisory grade which results in the highest pay rate for the job. The occupational code for a supervisory job is normally the same as the code for the kind of work that is supervised. We concur with the agency on its selection of the Barbering, 7603 occupational code.
All aspects of a JGS (i.e., coverage, regular and recurring duties, grading factors, and the full intent of the JGS) must be fully met for jobs to be evaluated under the JGS for Supervisors. Appropriate application of the JGS for Supervisors requires full and careful analysis of all relevant factors. The central coverage criteria in that standard, i.e., the ongoing requirement that supervisors regularly perform supervisory duties on a substantially full-time and continuing basis, are stringent. Based on relevant advisory guidance provided by OPM’s Classification Programs Division and addressed in OPM’s Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, Number 23, Article number 23-07 (October 1999), “substantially full-time” means performing supervisory duties to such an extent that, for all intents and purposes, it is considered to be comparable to full-time or 100 percent. Jobs that perform supervisory functions on less than a substantially full-time basis (i.e., less than 85 percent) do not meet the basic criteria for coverage and cannot be evaluated under the JGS for Supervisors.
According to the appellants’ JD, which they have stated is complete and accurate, supervisory duties occupy 50 percent of their worktime. However, duties and responsibilities assigned to a job flow from the mission assigned to the organization in which they are found. The jobs created to perform that assigned mission must be considered in relation to one another, i.e., each job reflects a part of the work assigned to the organization. Therefore, the duties and responsibilities assigned to the appellants’ job and performed by them may not be considered in a vacuum. In this case, as confirmed by the JD, they spend the remaining 50 percent of their worktime on instructor responsibilities. However, because supervisors traditionally play a critical role in the development of subordinate employees, they may perform training-related responsibilities similar to the instructor work performed by the appellants such as providing instruction, ensuring workers have resources and equipment to complete training, identifying training needs, tracking completed training, etc. In addition, our discussions with the appellants and their supervisor confirmed that the students accepted into the barber program require significant oversight and, as a result, the appellants must also exercise quasi-supervisory responsibilities over students to provide advice, address performance and conduct issues, observe progress, and inspect work. We also find the basic purpose of their job and reason for its existence is to function as first-level supervisors over the staff of workers in the Barber Shop. While the appellants’ direct supervisory duties fall short of the 85 percent threshold required for application of the JGS for Supervisors, when combined with the percentage of time spent on quasi-supervisory training responsibilities performed as instructors in both classroom and on-the-job settings, we conclude their training duties are an integral element of overall supervision and they are functioning as fully operating supervisors within the meaning of the JGS. Consequently, their job clearly meets coverage requirements (including the “substantially full-time” element) for application of the JGS for Supervisors.
The work supervised by the appellants clearly involves trades and practices covered by the JGS for Barbering, 7603, which describes cutting and arranging hair on the head and face. Work in the 7603 occupation requires knowledge of barbering, and skill in shaving, cutting, and styling hair, mustaches, and beards by applying barbering techniques and tools. As discussed later in this decision, we determined the final grade of the appellants’ job based on their supervisory work resulted in the highest pay rate. Supervisory jobs are identified by the job title of the occupation selected followed by the supervisory designation. Therefore, the proper pay system, occupational code, and title prescribed for the appellants’ job is Barber Supervisor, WS-7603. The parenthetical title is at the agency’s discretion.
Regarding the vocational training provided to inmates, the appellants state in their request:
We believe that our wage grade determination is not considering the fact that we are responsible for teaching students/inmates to take a Kansas Barber licensing examination. This includes classroom instruction, testing/grading, hands-on learning, maintaining and reporting to the [KBOB] all necessary information among other things. This is an active learning process. We are not merely overseeing their daily work.
We consider the appellants’ role in training inmates part of their overall supervisory duties. However, to address the appellants’ concerns, the extent of time needed and scope of their formalized training and instruction (including the KBOB mandatory curriculum), and the fact the JGS for Supervisors does not directly deal with this type of unique training situation, we have separately evaluated it by cross comparison to the JGS for Leader. The JGS for Leader is used to grade the jobs of leaders who as a regular and recurring part of their jobs, and on a substantially full time and continuing basis, lead three or more workers to (a) accomplish trades and labor work or (b) train them in the nonsupervisory work of a trades or laboring occupation. Part II of the JGS for Leader is used to evaluate training leaders who lead three or more workers in performing trades and labor training assignments. Training leaders require sufficient skill in and knowledge of the trade to carry out the training leader duties described in the standard and, as a second requirement, a practical knowledge of the methods and techniques of instruction. Consequently, to consider all work performed in their job we have evaluated their training duties by application of the grading criteria in Part II of the JGS for Leader.
Grade determination
When both supervisory and nonsupervisory work are a regular and recurring part of the job, the final grade of the job is the supervisory or nonsupervisory grade resulting in the higher pay rate for the job. The JGS for Supervisors states that where the nonsupervisory work personally performed by a supervisor is at a higher grade than the work done by the employees supervised, the supervisory work and the personally performed work are graded separately against the appropriate JGSs. The final grade of such a job is then determined by selecting the nonsupervisory or supervisory grade resulting in the highest pay rate for the employee. Accordingly, we will examine the appellants’ personally performed, training leader, and supervisory work separately.
Evaluation using the JGS for Barbering, 7603
The appellants’ personally performed work is evaluated by the JGS for Barbering, 7603, which provides four grading factors: Skill and Knowledge, Responsibility, Physical Effort, and Working Conditions. Grade 7 is the only level described by the standard. Grade 7 barbers must have skill and knowledge such as shaving, cutting, and styling straight, wavy, curly and kinky hair, and mustaches; skin and hair conditioning procedures such as shampooing and rinsing, massages, and hair tonic treatments; and haircuts such as full and half crowns, trims and long, pompadours, and modern types. Work at this level also requires ability to visualize barbering needs of the patron by such physical features as face contour, head shape, hairline, hair length and density, or bald conditions.
The agency credited the appellants’ personally performed work at Grade 7 and we concur based on our analysis of the grading criteria. Their work cannot exceed Grade 7 unless the barbering services they personally provide require significantly more knowledge and skill than that described by the JGS, which they do not. Therefore, the appellants’ personally performed work is evaluated at Grade-7.
Evaluation using the JGS for Leader
Part II of the JGS for Leader is used to evaluate training leaders who lead three or more workers in performing trades and labor training assignments, including as a paramount requirement sufficient skill in and knowledge of the trades and labor occupation or work in which training is given to effectively carry out the duties of training leaders. Typical duties of a training leader are: conducting training sessions designed to update, improve, or upgrade the knowledge and skills of others; selecting, modifying, and using various instructional methods and techniques; obtaining textbooks, magazines, bulletins, charts, educational and instructional media, directives, and other training materials for use during training sessions, and developing training materials as needed; showing others proper trade techniques and practices, and explaining safety precautions to be followed; making class and outside work assignments consistent with daily lesson plans, scheduling practical exercises to accommodate time limitations, and monitoring class work to ascertain progress; encouraging good class attendance and conduct, and motivating other workers to achieve training objectives; offering counsel and guidance to those striving to improve performance in the training course; evaluating the progress of workers; developing and administering information examinations of workers to test their progress in the training; maintaining individual progress charts showing type of work and equipment worked on, and performance rating for each type of work; and discussing with shop supervision and training personnel, problems and other issues concerning the training of workers.
As part of their overall supervisory duties, the appellants perform nearly all of the training leader duties described above and spend a considerable amount of time performing training related to the vocational barber college program. The number of students in the program fluctuates but currently seven students are enrolled at the DB-based college and six students are enrolled at the JRCF-based college. When an inmate expresses interest in the program, the appellants decide whether the individual can be admitted. Because the program takes 12 to 15 months to complete, and prohibits sex offenders from enrolling, they make such decisions based on the time remaining on an inmate’s sentence and his criminal history. Training is provided year-round. As there is no fixed start or finish dates, students are staggered into the program once they are enrolled. The appellants provide one-on-one instruction to new students for six weeks to teach basics such as operating sinks and chairs, maintaining tools and equipment, sanitation, holding shears, manipulating combs and other tools, sectioning and holding hair, and explaining barbershop operations. By the end of the first month, students are taught to cut hair at one length. The appellants also help students prepare for the State examination, which is administered at least annually by KBOB at the Complex. After three years of experience, a barber is eligible to take the State Board examination to be licensed as a barber-instructor. The appellants instruct and mentor those licensed barbers for approximately six months prior to the examination, providing instruction on planning lessons, facilitating learning, giving lectures, and teaching demonstrations. Currently, two of the four workers assigned to the DB are waiting to take the barber-instructor test. Workers who obtain a license as a barber-instructor may serve as assistant instructors at their assigned college.
Two types of training leaders are described in the standard, Types A and B. Type A training leaders conduct training to update or expand the skills of full performance workers. Type B training leaders conduct training sessions under formal organized training programs which cover all phases of a recognized trade or line of work that are designed to progressively improve the student’s skills. The appellants’ job is characteristic of a Type B training leader because their training program involves students who are inexperienced in the trade and progressively acquire the appropriate trade skills.
In the case of the appellants, the grade of their work as a training leader is based on the highest nonsupervisory level of trade skill and knowledge required of the trainer where no target grade is identifiable as a result of the training. As previously discussed, Grade 7 is the only level described by the 7603 JGS, which describes barbers having the skill and knowledge to shave, cut, and style straight, wavy, curly, and kinky hair and mustaches, as well as condition skin and hair such as shampooing and rinsing, massages, and hair tonic treatments. After carefully considering the syllabus and curriculum of the colleges, it is evident the skill and knowledge required by the appellants to instruct in their areas of study mandated by the State of Kansas to license barbers exceeds the skill and knowledge required to perform the work described at the Grade 7 level at the institution. Of the 1,500 curriculum hours required to be completed by students, 15 theory hours and 40 clinic hours are devoted to hair coloring and 15 theory hours and 40 clinic hours are devoted to perming. For developing coloring, perming, and other chemical services skills, students practice on and apply prescribed techniques to mannequin heads. According to the appellants, these areas of study are the most challenging and time-consuming of the entire curriculum. To be licensed barbers, students must also pass the practical examination, written Kansas Rules and Regulations examination, and the written National-Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology Barber Styling Theory examination. Because the curriculum and practical and written examinations cover hair coloring, lightening, texturizing, perming, relaxing, and various related chemical services (not actually performed at the institution), the appellants are required to apply skill and knowledge sufficient to instruct students in areas beyond the cut and conditioning of hair and skin described at the Grade 7 level.
To determine whether the skill and knowledge required by the appellants to train students significantly exceeds the Grade 7 level in the 7603 JGS, i.e., to warrant crediting to a higher level, we first considered guidance in the Introduction to the Federal Wage System Job Grading System (Introduction), Appendix 3, which provides the factor definitions for Skill and Knowledge. The Introduction describes the elements covered under the Skill and Knowledge factor, which includes, but is not limited to: (1) Knowledge of work practices, methods, and processes, and their levels of difficulty; (2) Knowledge of shop mathematics; (3) Practical knowledge of the principles underlying the work, or other special or technical knowledge; (4) Knowledge of other trades; (5) Skill in specific trade operations, and the degree of manual dexterity or precision required; (6) Ability to read and write, to interpret blueprints, work instructions, and other technical guides of varying degrees of complexity; (7) Ability to use or operate tools, equipment, or machines of varying difficulty; (8) Mental abilities needed, such as memory, judgment, and ingenuity; and (9) Mental application required.
The skill and knowledge required to perform the appellants’ training leader duties significantly and positively impact the elements considered under this factor. The further demands required to instruct on chemical services involve additional skills and knowledge, for example, of work practices, methods, and processes; different styling and finishing techniques; practical knowledge of the principles applying to various chemical services as well as applicable safety precautions; ability to apply varying chemical service techniques in accordance with manufacturer’s directions; application of mental abilities like judgment to assess the client’s hair prior to treatment, as well as creativity and ingenuity; and the ability to operate tools and equipment unique to the specific chemical service. Moreover, due to the specified curriculum and training procedures, they carry out their instruction responsibilities with significantly less supervisory review, which is essentially limited to review of only the administrative aspects of their instruction work, e.g., review of student training records and timeliness of course completion. We conclude that such demands exceed the duties described at the Grade 7 level in the 7603 JGS so significantly as to warrant crediting an additional grade level, i.e., to the Grade 8 level. Nonetheless, the breadth and depth of the appellants’ training demands are constrained as the record shows the intended purpose of their program is to provide competency-based knowledge only to the extent necessary for an individual to gain an entry-level job in the barbering field, rather than to gain mastery of the chemical services. We find the highest level of trade skill and knowledge required to perform their extensive training duties related to their overall supervisory responsibilities meets but does not exceed Grade-8. Using the Training Leader Grading Table, the highest level of trade skill and knowledge required by the appellants is Grade-8 which converts to WL-8.
Evaluation using the JGS for Supervisors
The grading plan for wage grade supervisors consists of three factors: (1) Nature of Supervisory Responsibility; (2) Level of Work Supervised; and (3) Scope of Work Operations Supervised.
Factor 1, Nature of Supervisory Responsibility
This factor considers the nature of the supervisory duties performed, and the type and degree of responsibility for control over the work supervised. The factor describes four basic supervisory situations. These, in sequence, depict successively higher levels of supervisory responsibility and authority for scheduling work operations, planning use of resources (i.e., subordinate workers, equipment, facilities, materials, and tools) to accomplish scheduled or unscheduled work, directing subordinates in performing work assignments, and carrying out administrative duties.
The agency credited the appellants’ job at Situation 1, which describes supervisors who are primarily responsible for supervising workers, either directly or through subordinate leaders, in accomplishing trades and labor work operations in a segment of an organization, a group, or work shift. Supervisors in Situation 1 perform the following:
Planning
- Plan the use of workers, equipment, facilities, materials, and tools on a day-to-day or project-by-project basis;
- Adhere to work priorities, project schedules, resources, and detailed work plans established by higher level supervisors;
- Follow customary work cycles and sequences in planning work assignments;
- Track and report progress on work assignments and request authority to adjust worker assignments and to use overtime, equipment, and materials to meet schedules; and
- Recommend changes to schedules, priorities, and work sequences as necessary and make minor deviations in procedures or redirect resources under their control to overcome problems such as equipment failure, material delays, or unplanned absences.
Work Direction
- Assign work to individuals and provide technical direction and/or help in accomplishing difficult work steps and processes;
- Observe work in progress to anticipate and resolve problems, reassign personnel within group supervised, and coordinate work among workers and other supervisors to maintain work progress to meet schedules;
- Inspect completed work for quality and work order requirements; and
- Report possible or actual work delays to their supervisors.
Administration
- Support and explain management programs to their subordinates;
- Recommend performance ratings, training, disciplinary actions, changes in performance standards, and the most suitable applicants for vacancies;
- Advise and counsel workers on how to improve their performance and explain new work techniques;
- Investigate grievances and complaints, resolve them informally, and notify supervisors of those of sufficient importance or seriousness;
- Assure safety and housekeeping practices are observed; and
- Maintain work reports and records and assist supervisors in planning overall leave schedules.
The appellants agree with the agency’s assignment of Situation 1 to this factor and we concur. In collaboration with their first-level supervisor, the appellants select inmates to work in a paid position at an inside or outside barbershop. The number of workers assigned to barbershop details fluctuates, but currently four workers are assigned to the DB and three workers are assigned to the JRCF. Each outside barbershop is assigned four workers. To supervise those workers, the appellants perform the Planning elements described under Situation 1 such as assigning work, following customary work cycles and sequences when planning work assignments, and controlling the equipment, facilities, materials, and tools used on a day-to-day basis. They maintain the general population inmate pass roster, which entails scheduling inmates every two weeks for recurring haircut appointments. They must be cognizant of any potential issues with personalities when scheduling an inmate with a particular worker. The appellants adhere to work priorities, resources, and work plans. They also recommend changes to priorities, work sequences, or schedules when necessary to overcome problems including unplanned absences. For example, if a worker fails to show up for his work detail due to illness, the appellants must quickly adjust schedules and distribute the scheduled appointments accordingly. They regularly track and report on the progress of work assignments to their first-level supervisor. When requiring workers to perform duties outside of the normal shop hours (e.g., to prepare the facility for inspection), the appellants forward requests to the first-level supervisor for approval of the additional work time. They also maintain records on equipment, tools, and parts. When necessary, they prepare requisitions for higher-level approval concerning supplies, equipment, and materials.
Regarding the Work Direction elements, the appellants assign work and provide technical direction to workers, especially those recently licensed and to those performing barbering services outside the usual (e.g., long hair on female staff). They ensure the assignment of work corresponds to the skill level of the worker. Throughout the work detail, the appellants must closely observe work in progress and check completed jobs for quality of workmanship to ensure haircuts, mustaches, and beards meet the established military standards expected of inmates at the Complex. In addition, they elevate work issues to their immediate supervisor such as worker absences, missing equipment or tools, and performance- or conduct-related issues of the soldiers.
The Administration elements described under Situation 1 do not all directly apply to supervisors of inmate workers. While the appellants participate in inmate performance reviews, provide training on the tasks and techniques of the trade, advise and counsel on performance improvement, assure safety and sanitation practices are observed, and maintain work records and other reports, their duties and responsibilities do not encompass all the administrative responsibilities normally handled by supervisors of Federal employees. For example, as supervisors in a correctional facility, they do not recommend performance ratings or changes in performance standards or assist supervisors in planning overall leave schedules. However, their role is offset by the responsibility for work comparable to that performed by traditional supervisors as well as their significant role in training, counseling, motivating, and maintaining discipline and security in relation to the inmate workforce. Although they do not recommend performance ratings for workers, the appellants are responsible for evaluating the inmates’ work performance in order to establish performance pay levels. Workers assigned to the outside barbershop are paid 20 percent of the daily intake with a maximum of $20 per day, but the starting pay of workers assigned to the inside barbershop is 80 cents per hour. The appellants may increase the pay of inside barbershop workers, who may earn an increase of 5 cents per hour each month based on individual performance. They must also observe workers closely throughout the work detail, identifying additional training needs or taking disciplinary measures, when necessary, such as warnings, reprimands, or written disciplinary reports involving behavior or conduct issues. In addition to maintaining daily time and attendance records for workers to determine if shops are operating at a profit or loss, the appellants complete safety, sanitation, fire, abatement, and other reports and logs.
In Situation 2, supervisors are responsible for supervising workers directly or through subordinate leaders and/or supervisors in accomplishing the work of an organizational segment or group. Supervisors in Situation 2 differ from supervisors in Situation 1 primarily in planning work operations of greater scope and complexity; determining the sequence, priority, and time for the performance of particular operations within the limits of broader work schedules and time limits; and exercising greater administrative authority.
Situation 2 is not met. The appellants are first-level supervisors and do not have responsibility for the overall direction and coordination of subordinate work activities or functions expected in Situation 2. Work operations involving their assigned barbershops and college, as a whole, do not have the scope and complexity requiring the type of planning described at Situation 2 such as coordinating work with supporting or related work functions controlled by other supervisors, redirecting workers and resources to accomplish unanticipated work, and informing higher level supervisors of the need to review work schedules and re-estimate labor and other resources. Unlike Situation 2 supervisors, the appellants do not exercise greater administrative authority, e.g., to plan and establish the overall leave schedule; determine training needs of subordinates and arrange for its accomplishment, set performance standards, and make formal appraisals of subordinate work performance; and initiate recommendations for promotion or reassignment of subordinates. Therefore, we credit Factor 1 with Situation 1.
Factor 2, Level of Work Supervised
This factor concerns the level and complexity of the work operations supervised, and their effect on the difficulty and responsibility of the supervisor’s job. All substantive work for which the supervisor is technically accountable is considered. Excluded from consideration is support or facilitating work, work that is graded based upon supervisory or leader standards, work that is graded higher than normal because of extraordinary independence from supervision, and work personally performed by the supervisor.
To determine the level of nonsupervisory work to be credited under this factor, as indicated in steps 1 and 2 below, consider all substantive work, whether under the direct or indirect supervision of the job being graded, for which the supervisor is technically accountable.
Step 1. Identify the occupation (or various occupations) directly involved in accomplishing the work assignments and projects which reflect the main purpose or mission of the work operations for which the supervisor is accountable.
Step 2. Determine the grade of the highest-level nonsupervisory work accomplished by subordinates who, under normal job controls, perform the work of one or more of the occupations identified in step 1 above. In determining the grade level to be credited, care must be used to make certain that the grades of the subordinate jobs really reflect the level and complexity of the work operations supervised and their effect on the difficulty and responsibility of the supervisor’s job.
The appellants supervise workers assigned to the inside and outside barbershops. Workers perform barbering services such as cutting, shampooing, and shaving of hair and massaging of the face. They are not permitted to perform chemical services on patrons. We conclude the appellants oversee workers performing work in a single trade, i.e., Barbering, 7603. Because inmates work under job descriptions and pay levels different from the Federal Wage System (FWS), their equivalent FWS grades must be determined based upon comparison of their duties and responsibilities against OPM JGSs. The work performed by subordinate workers is identical to the appellants’ personally performed work, which we evaluated at the Grade-7 level based on comparison to the 7603 JGS.
The appellants assert their workers should be recognized as performing barbering work at a constructed grade higher than the Grade-7 level, stating in their appeal request:
I must teach (and therefore supervise) these chemical services to every student/inmate who enters the program as part of the mandated curriculum assigned by the [KBOB]. These chemicals are used in the school at any time a student/inmate wishes to practice them independently and are conducted repeatedly as part of the teaching process. They are taught formulation, application, technique, chemical process, safety and more regarding these services.
In determining the highest-level nonsupervisory work accomplished by the appellants’ subordinates, we considered the work performed by the four workers assigned to the DB; two of the four workers are licensed barber-instructors and may serve as assistant instructors. As such, these workers occasionally assist with students but one of their main functions is to cut hair for soldiers and staff members. We also considered the work performed by the three workers assigned to the JRCF and eight workers assigned to outside barbershops. However, because all workers at the inside and outside barbershops do not perform chemical services on patrons, the work relating to chemical services was not considered in our evaluation of work supervised by the appellants. We thus credited the base level of work supervised at the Grade-7 level.
Factor 3, Scope of Work Operations Supervised
This factor considers the scope of the job’s supervisor responsibility in terms of: (1) the scope of the assigned work function and organizational authority; (2) the variety of functions the job is required to supervise; and (3) the physical dispersion, work coordination, and location of subordinate employees. This factor is divided into three subfactors, which are in turn subdivided into levels with points assigned to each level. An appropriate level is selected for each subfactor and the corresponding point values are totaled. The total points are then converted to specific levels under Factor 3 using the conversion chart at the end of the factor.
Subfactor A, Scope of Assigned Work Function and Organizational Authority
This subfactor measures the scope of the assigned work function or mission, i.e., the purpose of the job in the organization, the extent and nature of the job’s authority in relation to the organizational assignment, and the importance of the jobs’ decisions. To determine the proper subfactor level for a job, careful judgment must be used to identify the actual supervisory authorities assigned to the job and how they are exercised.
At Level A-1, supervisors have first level supervisory and decision authority over a single work function. Decisions made at this level are clearly defined or virtually automatic since higher level management has already established a course of action and a methodology for implementation.
At Level A-2, supervisors have first or second level supervisory and decision authority over an organizational segment which typically has been established on the basis of being a distinct work function or mission; or a designated geographic location or work area. Supervisors make routine decisions regarding execution of policy which has been interpreted or established by the next higher level. At this level, subordinate supervisors and/or leaders may be necessary to accomplish work operations. Supervisors at this level react to variations in the workplace and maintain a balanced workload between subordinate work groups, making adjustments in workload as necessary. Decisions typically involve the work or assignments and how they are completed.
The appellants’ job fully meets Level A-1, as they have first-level supervisory and decision-making authority over a single work function (i.e., barbershops and barbering college), and the barbering and training course of action is already established by higher level management. Unlike Level A-2, the appellants do not have supervisory or decision-making authority over an organizational unit established as a distinct work function or mission. The agency’s organizational chart shows the overall Barber Shop is the level or organizational unit with a mission and program that is clear and distinct from other organizational units within the Directorate of Correctional Programs, and the DB and JRCF barbershops/colleges and the outside barbershops fall within that organization. The appellants’ supervisor has been delegated supervisory and decision-making authority for the overall Barber Shop. Consequently, we evaluate this subfactor at Level A-1 and credit 30 points.
Subfactor B, Variety of Function
This subfactor evaluates the difficulties of technical supervision of work functions which may vary from being essentially similar to markedly dissimilar. Similar or related work functions have a common or related body of knowledges, skills, work procedures, and tools. Supervision of dissimilar or unrelated work functions require broader technical knowledges and planning and coordination skills than those required for supervision of similar work functions.
The appellants’ job is an exact match to Level B-1, which describes supervisors directing the work of subordinates in accomplishing an assigned function in one or more similar or related occupations at grades 1-7. The appellants believe their job should be credited at Level B-3, which describes supervisors directing the work of subordinates in one or more similar or related occupations at grades 8-13. As previously discussed under Factor 2, we credited the base level of work supervised at the Grade-7 level. Therefore, we evaluate this subfactor at Level B-1 and credit 25 points.
Subfactor C, Workforce Dispersion
This subfactor evaluates the varying levels of difficulty associated with monitoring and coordinating the work of nonsupervisory and supervisory personnel who vary from being collocated to widely dispersed. Dispersion of workforce considers the duration of projects, number of work sites, frequency of dispersion, and the necessity to monitor and coordinate the work.
At Level C-1, subordinate employees are located in several buildings or at work sites within a defined location such as a military base, National Park, or large Federal complex consisting of many multi-floor buildings and support facilities. Work assignments vary in terms of duration; however, most assignments at this level are of a limited duration.
At Level C-2, subordinate employees are located in work groups of varying sizes at numerous job sites within large military bases (e.g., air rework facilities, supply depots, shipyards, and comparable Federal facilities). Employees or work groups at Level C-2 may on occasion work outside of the commuting area or across State lines. Work assignments at this level are typically on an ongoing basis and are accomplished within several weeks or months.
Characteristic of Level C-1, each appellant is assigned to one “inside” barbershop, which also serves as a barber college, and one “outside” barbershop located outside of the prison but within the military base. Therefore, we evaluate this subfactor at Level C-1 and credit 5 points.
The total credit for Factor 3 is 60 points, which equates to Level A (55 to 65 points) on the Point Conversion Chart for Factor 3 of the JGS for Supervisors.
Tentative Grade Assignment
According to the JGS’s Grading Table for jobs credited with Supervisory Situation 1, the intersection point for Grade 7 level of work supervised and Level A scope of work operations supervised is the grade 5 level.
Final Grade Determination
Both upward and downward changes from the tentative grade are required based on certain circumstances. A situation requiring a downward adjustment is offset by an upward adjustment. Grade level adjustments may not exceed one grade level.
Downward
A downward adjustment is required when the tentative grade would be the same grade as the supervisor’s superior. This situation does not apply to the appellants’ job.
Upward
Upward grade adjustments are made for borderline jobs and work situations that impose special or unusual demands on the supervisor.
Borderline Jobs. An upward adjustment is warranted when the supervisory job substantially exceeds the situation credited under Factor 1 and the base level of work determined under Factor 2 is not the highest level of subordinate work for which the supervisor has full technical responsibility. In this case, a grade adjustment based on borderline conditions is not warranted.
Special or Unusual Demands. In some situations, the nature of the work operations supervised, the mission to be accomplished, or other circumstances impose special demands on the supervisor involved. These special requirements may significantly affect the intensity of the supervisory effort, and the level of both technical and administrative knowledge and skill which must be applied.
In some work situations, special staffing requirements may impose on the supervisor a substantially greater responsibility for job design, job engineering, work scheduling, training, counseling, motivating, and maintaining security than that which is normally encountered in orienting, training, and supervising subordinates in accomplishing work. For example, special employment programs such as work-study, rehabilitation, and others, may be geared toward utilizing employees with very low-level skills and inappropriate or no work experience. Other “staffing” situations, such as those at correctional institutions, also may involve exceptionally difficult attitudinal, motivational, control, and security problems. An upward grade adjustment may be made in determining the grade of a supervisor directly responsible or indirectly responsible (through subordinate supervisors) for work operations involving such exceptional conditions that affect the majority of the subordinate workforce when all of the following are present: (a) The special staffing circumstances, rather than being temporary or intermittent in duration, affect the responsibilities of the supervisor on a permanent and continuing basis; (b) Job assignments, work tasks, training, security measures, and other supervisory actions must be tailored to fit these special circumstances for individual workers; and (c) Counseling and motivational activities are regular and recurring, and are essential to the effective handling of the special work situation.
The special demands grade adjustment does not automatically apply to all correctional institution supervisors, but only to those facing all three conditions specified. Based on careful review of the record, we find the appellants’ job meets the criteria for an upward grade adjustment. They must carefully design job tasks, assignments, and training in consideration of the skill levels of individual workers. Because they are newly licensed barbers, subordinate workers generally bring entry-level skills into the work environment. As a result, the appellants are required to spend time with individual workers, observing them closely and constantly, to provide verbal instructions designed to improve their skill levels in the licensed field. Because appellants must tailor assignments based on work skills and personalities of the worker and patron, the appellants’ environment requires more demands, especially in the technical oversight of workers, than what would be expected outside the correctional institution where their counterparts typically hire skilled barbers for Federal civilian positions.
In addition, the appellants play a significant role in counseling, motivating, and maintaining discipline and security of their subordinate workers. Through daily conversations, they regularly counsel and motivate workers with the goal of assisting rehabilitation and providing job skills. They also provide monthly evaluations which include feedback on a worker’s performance and behavior in the work environment. If counseling and positive reinforcements are unsuccessful, they may take further disciplinary actions on workers, e.g., by removing them from work details at the barbershops and filing disciplinary reports. Depending on the severity, some actions may be reviewed by the disciplinary board, who assigns punishments to inmates. The appellants maintain overall security and control of tools, parts, and materials used in the work environment. Although soldiers guard inmates at the inside and outside barbershops, their environment regularly brings workers into close contact with inmates/patrons, which poses opportunities for conflict and requires the appellants to maintain constant and continual vigilance to control the movement of inmates, maintain security of the facility, and ensure safety of inmates and staff. When necessary, they are required to write disciplinary reports for inmates who are at the inside barbershops as patrons. The actual supervision exercised by the appellants is intensified due to other demands such as the responsibility of overseeing physically dispersed workers assigned to the outside barbershop, as well as behavior issues when dealing with less motivated workers, e.g., those with longer sentences or those newly incarcerated.
The above instances demonstrate the exceptional demands placed on the appellants, on a permanent and continuing basis, requiring they tailor individual job assignments, work tasks, training, and security measures, and provide regular and recurring counseling and motivational activities. Therefore, an upward adjustment from the WS-5 to WS-6 level is warranted.
Summary
The JGS for Supervisors provides instructions indicating that when both supervisory and nonsupervisory work are a regular and recurring part of a job, the supervisory duties and nonsupervisory work are first graded separately. The final grade of such a job is then determined by selecting the supervisory or the nonsupervisory grade which results in the higher pay rate for the job. We find the appellants’ supervisory work meets the WS-6 level, while the nonsupervisory barber work meets the Grade 7 level.[1] Therefore, the higher pay rate for the appellants’ job is WS-6.
Decision
The appellants’ job is properly graded as Barber Supervisor, WS-7603-06. Parenthetical title is at agency discretion.
[1] While through cross comparison to the JGS for Leader we have separately evaluated the appellants’ training duties at the WL-8 level, we view this work as an integral part of their extended supervisory training responsibilities and thus it does not impact the final grade of the job. Even if we evaluated it as a separate grading factor in this “mixed” job by comparison to representative rates in FWS wage schedules for the appellants’ wage area it would not result in a higher final pay grade than the WS-6 level.