Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Leave Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Department of Veterans Affairs
Roseburg, Oregon
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
12/08/2020
Date
The claimant is currently employed in a Nurse, VN-0610-II, position with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Roseburg, Oregon. She previously held an Operating Room Nurse position with the U.S. Army Medical Command (ARMC) before transferring to the VHA, with no break in service, effective February 17, 2019. She asserts that due to improper processing during her onboarding, her annual and sick leave balances were not transferred from ARMC to the VHA. She further asserts that this resulted in insufficient sick leave to use when she fell ill (February 3, 2020 to February 7, 2020 and February 24, 2020 to February 28, 2020) and a reduction of pay. She requests the transfer of 58 hours of annual leave and 254.75 of sick leave, restoration of 32 hours of annual leave that were “converted to sick time without [her] knowledge,” and $202.15 “docked” from her pay when she was out sick and had no annual or sick leave available to use. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
Section 7121(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code (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 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).
Documentation obtained by OPM (i.e., Standard Form 50, block 37) shows the claimant occupies a bargaining unit position. The Master Agreement between the VA and the American Federation of Government Employees covering the claimant during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude leave 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.
The claimant also requests pay for “$20,000 restitution for the immense stress inflicted upon [her] (and [her] family) by this VA….” OPM’s claims jurisdiction authority 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 an employee’s entitlement to compensation or leave. This authority does not extend to reviewing claims against agencies for restitution. Therefore, OPM does not consider such request within the context of the claims adjudication function it performs under 31 U.S.C. 3702.
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.