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.

OPM.gov / Policy / Pay & Leave / Claim Decisions / Compensation & Leave
Skip to main content

Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code

Michael Hill
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Kansas City, Missouri
Back pay for overtime denied
Denied
Denied; lack of jurisdiction
16-0070

Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


07/05/2017


Date

Introduction

The claimant is an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in Kansas City, Missouri.  He seeks remedy for a number of issues including but not limited to “[b]ack pay for [o]vertime [d]enied with interest” and a “within grade increase retroactive with interest.”[1]  We received the claim on June 1, 2016. 

We have accepted and decided this claim under section 3702(a)(2) of title 31, U.S.C.[2] 

Background

OPM has authority to adjudicate compensation and leave claims for many Federal employees under 31 U.S.C. 3702.  However, section 178.102(a) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), indicates that the claimant’s employing agency has reviewed and issued a written decision on the 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 VA component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that he has received such a decision.  Nevertheless, we may render a decision on his compensation claim in its entirety based on lack of jurisdiction.

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 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) and 5 CFR 551.703(a). 

Documentation obtained by OPM shows the claimant occupies a bargaining unit position (SF-50 block 37).  The Master Agreement between VA and the American Federation of Government Employees, covering the claimant during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude compensation claims from the NGP (Article 43).  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. 

Decision

The claim is denied based on lack of jurisdiction.



[1]The claimant also seeks to be compensated for pain and suffering from mental anguish and stress, to have his Federal personnel files cleared of all negative performance ratings of record, to be reimbursed for attorney’s fees, and to receive an apology from the employing agency for creating a hostile work environment.  We do not consider any of these issues within the context of the claims adjudication function OPM performs under 29 U.S.C. 204(f) or 31 U.S.C. 3702. 
[2] We initially accepted this claim under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  However, upon closer review, we determined the claimant’s request centers on his having been denied the opportunity to work overtime rather than not having been paid for overtime worked.  This issue is not covered by or reviewable under the FLSA.

Back to Top

Control Panel