Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Rochester, Minnesota
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
04/04/2018
Date
The claimant occupies an Advanced Medical Support Assistant, GS-679-6, position at a community based outpatient clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The clinic is part of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Minneapolis VA Health Care System. The agency initially offered the claimant an annual salary of $39,048, the rate stated on her March 24, 2017, job offer letter, a March 3, 2017, email from the servicing human resources office to confirm details of the job offer and her acceptance, and other communication. After the claimant’s April 2, 2017, appointment to the position, the agency states it discovered her pay had been calculated erroneously by reference to the Salary Table 2017 for the locality pay area of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which then set the salary of a GS-6, step 1, position at $39,048. The agency states the pay for her Rochester, Minnesota-based position was instead properly set by reference to the Salary Table 2017 for the locality pay area of the Rest of United States, which then set the salary of a GS-6, step 1, position at $36,611. The claimant states she would have declined the position if she had known her salary would be set at $36,611, which was less than the $37,000 annual salary she earned from her previous employer. She asks OPM to set her pay at $39,048, in accordance with her job offer letter and other communication from the agency prior to appointment. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
OPM has authority to adjudicate compensation and leave claims for many Federal employees under section 3702 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 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 her request does not show she has filed a signed, written claim with the agency component authorized to issue an agency-level decision or that she has received such a decision; i.e., from the VA Central Office’s Compensation and Classification Service. [1] Therefore, the claim is not ripe for review. Nevertheless, we may render a decision on her compensation claim in its entirety based on lack of jurisdiction.
Section 7121(a)(1) of title 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 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 or leave 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).
The record shows the claimant occupies a bargaining unit position (Standard Form 50, block 37). The CBA between VA and the American Federation of Government Employees covering the claimant during the period of the claim does not specifically exclude pay issues 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.
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 an appropriate United States court.
[1] Although the record includes an April 10, 2017, memorandum (subject: “Salary decision”) signed by the human resources officer for the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, there is no indication this component has been delegated the authority to issue agency-level decisions required by 5 CFR 178.102(a).