Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Rock Island, Illinois
Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
06/08/2016
Date
The claimant seeks to file a pay claim for relocation incentive in the amount of $23,997 as a result of her transfer to a new position with the U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM), U.S. Department of the Army (DA), in Rock Island, Illinois. We received the claim on October 22, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
On April 23, 2014, the claimant was extended, and accepted, a job offer for a General Engineer, GS-0801-13, position with IMCOM, located at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois. The job offer included a relocation incentive of 25 percent. On June 1, 2014, the claimant received a lump sum payment of $18,701 for the relocation incentive. However, the claimant asserts that the amount was calculated incorrectly and that she is still owed $23,997.
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 her request does not show she has filed a signed, written claim with the DA component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that she 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 50 showing the bargaining unit status in block 37) shows that she occupied a bargaining unit position during the period covered by the claim. The agreement between the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 2134, and the Rock Island Arsenal and the U.S. Army Health Clinic, Rock Island Arsenal covering the claimant does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP (Article 10). 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.
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.