Washington DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Compensation Claim Decision
Under section 3702 of title 31, United States Code
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Shreveport, Louisiana
Damon B. Ford
Compensation and Leave Claims Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
11/15/2022
Date
The claimant occupied a Physician, VM-0602, position with the Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in Shreveport, Louisiana. He states he resigned from his position effective June 27, 2022. The claimant requests the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reconsider his agency’s denial of his overtime compensation request. He asserts he was supposed to work 80 hours per pay period on a compressed work schedule, but he instead worked 84 hours per pay period for the past five years. As a remedy, he seeks overtime pay for work he performed over the basic 80-hour biweekly work requirement. We received the claim on June 28, 2022. For reasons discussed herein, the claim is denied.
In its June 16, 2022, decision, the VA denied the claimant’s request for overtime compensation, stating:
Full-time, permanent Physicians are appointed to the [VA] under Title 38 [United States Code (U.S.C.)] 7401 (1). VA pay administration policy is covered under VA Handbook 5007. VA Handbook 5007 Part V Chapter 2 Paragraph 2a states that full-time employees covered [by] 38 USC 7401 are employed on the basis of availability for duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No extra amount in addition to the regular per annum rate shall be payable to these employees for duty on a legal holiday, Saturday or Sunday, at night, on overtime, or for on-call duty.
Regardless, 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)(1) 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 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 section 178.101(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Documentation obtained by OPM (i.e., the Standard Form 50 showing the bargaining unit status in block 37) shows the claimant occupied a bargaining unit position. The 2011 Labor Master Agreement between the VA and National Federation of Federal Employees, covering the claimant during the claim period, does not specifically exclude compensation issues from the NGP (Article 5, Grievance Procedure, of the CBA). Therefore, this claim must be construed as covered by the NGP the claimant was subject to during the claim period, and consequently OPM has no jurisdiction over the 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.