Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
Federal Acquisition Service
Washington, DC
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
08/01/2022
Date
The claimant occupied the position of Contract Specialist, GS-1102-14, during the claim period with the Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration (GSA) in Washington, D.C. He seeks to be repaid for “wages and compensation for [his] worktime” in the amount of $201.39, which his agency determined as an overpayment to his salary. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received the claim request on February 24, 2022. For the reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
By letter dated December 3, 2021, GSA’s Payroll Services Branch notified the claimant that on July 31, 2020, it processed a change in pay rates from Human Resources (HR) which resulted in a pay adjustment changing the claimant’s annual salary from $130, 698.00 (GS-14, step 03) to $126, 614.00 (GS-14, step 02) effective June 20, 2021. The letter further states that the claimant was paid at the higher rate for pay period ending (PPE) July 3, 2021, and PPE July 17, 2021, and as a result, he was overpaid $201.39, and required him to pay the debt. The claimant believes the letter lacked supporting documentation to justify the “alleged overpayments” to his salary and submits with his request to OPM a Standard Form (SF) 50 showing an action for a within grade increase from GS-14, step 02 to GS-14, step 03, effective June 20, 2021. Although, the claimant sent a check to GSA’s Payroll Services Branch for the required amount owed, he conditioned the deposit of the check on his agency confirming the overpayment and providing him with relevant supporting documentation. However, the claimant states the check was deposited on or about January 20, 2022, but he did not receive evidence to support that he had been overpaid.
As an initial matter, the claimant labeled this claim a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim. The FLSA claims process in subpart G of part 551 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), covers disputes over FLSA exemption status, failure to pay FLSA nonexempt employees the minimum wage or the proper overtime pay, and child labor complaints. SF-50 submitted by the claimant effective June 20, 2021, shows in block 35 that he was classified as an FLSA exempt employee. As an FLSA exempt employee who is not disputing his exemption status, the claimant is not covered by the FLSA claims process since it does not cover the issue he raises, i.e., whether he was paid at a higher rate during PPE July 3, 2021, and July 17, 2021. Therefore, to the extent this claim is construed as a request for underpayment or repayment of wages, we will treat this request as a compensation claim which OPM is authorized to settle under the provisions of section 3702(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.), and part 178 of title 5, CFR.
Section 178.102 of title 5, CFR specifies the documentation accompanying a claim should include a copy of the final written agency denial of the claim (5 CFR 178.102(a)(3)). Therefore, the procedures for submitting a claim require that an employing agency has already reviewed and issued an initial decision on a claim before it is submitted to OPM for adjudication. Although the record does not include an agency-level decision, we may render a decision on this claim based on jurisdictional grounds.
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 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 provided by the claimant (i.e., SF-50 effective June 20, 2021, block 37 showing bargaining unit status) shows he occupied a bargaining unit position during the period covered by the claim. Furthermore, the CBA between GSA and National Federation of Federal Employees dated July 7, 2021, and in effect during the claim period, does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP (Article 7, Section 2) covering the claimant.
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.