Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Department of Defense
Washington, D.C.
Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
03/13/2015
Date
The claimant was previously employed with the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), Department of Defense, in Washington, D.C. He requests (1) "[t]he award of Field Training Officer status on [his] SF-50 and to include back pay from April 2010 through December 2013 for that position"[1]; (2) "the award of Temporary Duty Assignment Pay for the applicable period of Jan 2010 through March 2013" in connection with a detail to Glynco, Georgia, because his “SF-50 reflected [his] duty station was at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.”; and (3) reimbursement for his relocation move from Brunswick, Georgia, to Frederick, Maryland. We received the claim on October 20, 2014. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
OPM has authority to adjudicate compensation and leave claims for many Federal employees under the provisions of section 3702(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.). However, section 178.102(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), indicates that the claimant’s employing agency must review and issue a written decision on a compensation claim before it is submitted to OPM for adjudication. The claimant is responsible for preserving the claim period by proving the signed, written claim was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. See 5 CFR 178.104. The information provided by the claimant with his request does not show he has filed a signed, written claim with the PFPA component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that he has received such a decision. Nevertheless, we may render a decision on this claim in its entirety based on lack of jurisdiction.
Section 7121(a)(1) of 5 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, leave, or FLSA 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).
Information provided by the claimant (i.e., Standard Form 50s showing the bargaining unit status in block 37) shows that he occupied a bargaining unit position during the period covered by the claim. The Master Agreement between the Defense Protective Service and the Fraternal Order of Police, D.C. Lodge No. 1, covering the claimant does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP (Article 50). Therefore, 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. As is clear in Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the fact the claimant is no longer employed by the PFPA does not remove the Civil Service Reform Act’s jurisdictional bar for claims covered by CBA arbitration and grievance procedures which arose during and from his employment with the PFPA.
We construe the claimant’s request for back pay from April 2010 through December 2013 as a request for a special rate or salary differential for the position to which he was detailed in Glynco, Georgia, commensurate with what he asserts was paid the Field Training Officers at the Pentagon. However, the claims jurisdiction authority of OPM under 31 U.S.C. 3702(a)(2) is limited to consideration of whether the applicable statutes and regulations have been properly interpreted and applied in determining whether monies are owed for the stated claim and does not extend to establishing geographically-based special rates or salary differentials at employee request. Therefore, although we do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim for the reasons discussed above, we also lack subject-matter jurisdiction.
The claimant also requests reimbursement for his relocation expenses and temporary duty pay. However, OPM does not have authority to consider this request or assert jurisdiction on this matter. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), not OPM, is responsible for issuing regulations on travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses and allowances for Federal civilian employees as authorized in Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code. GSA’s Civilian Board of Contract Appeals is responsible for settling travel, transportation and subsistence claims (http://www.cbca.gsa.gov/).
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 the appropriate United States Court.
[1] The claimant identifies this back pay as the "6% specialty pay" he asserts was paid Field Training Officers at the Pentagon.