Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Fair Labor Standards Act Decision
Under section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code
overtime pay.
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
07/10/2024
Date
Finality of Decision
As provided in section 551.708 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision is binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of agencies for which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The agency should identify all similarly situated current and, to the extent possible, former employees, and ensure that they are treated in a manner consistent with this decision and inform them in writing of their right to file an FLSA claim with the agency or OPM. There is no right of further administrative appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in 5 CFR 551.708 (address provided in section 551.710). The claimant has the right to bring action in the appropriate Federal court if dissatisfied with the decision.
The agency is to compute the claimant’s overtime pay in accordance with the instructions in this decision, then pay the claimant any amount owed. If the claimant believes the agency has incorrectly computed the amount owed him, he may file a new FLSA claim with this office. The servicing human resources office must submit a compliance report containing a Standard Form 50 showing the personnel action taken. Compliance action taken on this decision must be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision as provided for in 5 CFR 551.708(c)(1). The report must be submitted to OPM, Merit System Accountability and Compliance, Agency Compliance and Evaluation, Washington, DC, office.
Introduction
On March 28, 2022, OPM received an FLSA claim from representatives of the claimant who is challenging the exemption status of his positions and requesting back pay for any overtime worked between March 2020 and February 2022. During part of the claim period, the claimant occupied a Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, FV-0018-I, position (herein referred to as FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist) and was assigned to the Environmental Occupational Safety and Health (EOSH) Program Support Center (Team A), Technical Services Branch, Technical Operations Division, in Atlanta, Georgia, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT), with duty station in Nashville, Tennessee. During another part of the claim period, he occupied a Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, FV-0018-J, (herein referred to as FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist) and was assigned to the EOSH Program Support Center (Team C), Technical Services Branch, Technical Operations Division, in Atlanta, Georgia, FAA, DoT, with duty station in Nashville, Tennessee. The claimant challenges the FLSA exemption status of the two positions. The agency determined the claimant’s positions are exempt (i.e., not covered) from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA, but the claimant believes they should be designated as nonexempt (i.e., covered) under the FLSA. The claimant requests back pay calculated at the FLSA overtime pay rate for approximately two hundred hours of overtime worked between the dates noted above. We have accepted and decided this claim under section 4(f) of the FLSA of 1938, as amended, and codified at section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code (U.S.C.).
Background and General Issues
During the claim period, the claimant occupied two positions. Between March 28, 2020, and November 21, 2020, and between May 21, 2021, and March 28, 2022, he occupied an FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position, under position document (PD)/job analysis tool (JAT) number BNAW3CI. Between November 22, 2020, and May 20, 2021, the claimant was temporarily promoted and occupied an FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position, under standardized PD/JAT number AHFS60J. Both PD/JATs were provided by the agency.
The claimant disagrees with the exemption status determinations made by the agency and requests the difference between the overtime (OT) he received and the FLSA OT rate. He also verified he received a combination of OT pay, compensatory (comp) time off hours earned, and travel comp time hours earned. He noted he used all the comp time off, excluding travel comp time hours earned. The claimant stated he received non-FLSA OT pay for approximately 158 hours when he occupied the FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position and non-FLSA OT pay for approximately 41.57 hours when he occupied the FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position. He explained he is not sure of the number of hours for which he received travel comp time hours earned. In adjudicating this claim, our concern is to make an independent decision about the FLSA exemption status of the claimant’s positions. We must make that decision solely by comparing the claimant’s duties and responsibilities to FLSA regulations and guidelines.
In reaching our FLSA decision we carefully reviewed all documents and information provided by the claimant, the representatives, and the agency, as well as interviews with the claimant and two of his former supervisors for the periods he was assigned to the two positions specified above.
Position Information
As discussed in 5 CFR 551.202(e), while established position descriptions and position titles “may assist in making initial FLSA exemption determinations, the designation of an employee as FLSA exempt or nonexempt must ultimately rest on the duties actually performed by the employee.” In adjudicating this claim we applied this principle.
FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position
Our review disclosed the duties described in the PD/JAT for this position are not completely accurate in that they are overstated. For instance, it states the claimant served as the EOSH technical program manager for the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) District Office with overall authority and responsibility for compliance with Federal, state, and local EOSH regulations. However, our fact finding disclosed the Service Support Center (SSC) managers had overall authority and responsibility for compliance with EOSH regulations. The PD/JAT also states the claimant served as the EOSH expert for the district’s ATO EOSH operational program. Instead, the claimant served as an EOSH expert only for his assigned programs.
As a Safety and Environmental Compliance Manager (SECM) the claimant provided technical support as described below regarding various EOSH programs to his assigned SSC managers and technicians. He served the eastern service area’s Memphis District, which encompassed Kentucky, Arkansas, most of Tennessee, part of Mississippi, and northern Alabama.
When an employee who reported to a staffed facility (i.e., FAA offices and control towers) tested positive for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the facility was cleaned by a contractor. If located in the Memphis District, the claimant could have been assigned to oversee the cleaning process while a second SECM served as the coordinator (e.g., set up the date and time with the contractor to send workers to clean the facility). The claimant wore personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., safety boots, gloves, googles, and a respirator) and ensured the FAA maintenance standard operating procedure (SOP) was followed. For example, he ensured contractor personnel used cleaning chemicals in employee work areas approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The SSC manager or designee and air traffic personnel were also in the facility but isolated from the areas being cleaned. If the contractor personnel did not arrive at the facility with CDC-approved cleaning chemicals, the claimant had them on hand for their use. The second SECM initiated the report, and input the background information (e.g., facility location, contractor name, and the times the cleaning began and ended) into a template. The claimant then input the results of the cleaning process in the report before it was uploaded to the database that held such reports.
Once a year staffed facilities were inspected for possible asbestos (and every three years for unstaffed facilities). The claimant followed the appropriate checklist when he performed these inspections and collected material samples (e.g., floor tiles), which were sent to a laboratory to be tested. If asbestos was found, he used FAA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements and a template to write the scope of work (SOW) for the asbestos removal contract, which had to be reviewed/approved by a certified industrial hygienist (CIH).
When SSC managers had questions concerning fall hazards, the claimant provided mitigation techniques and went onsite to assess the situation, as needed. For example, if a technician slipped on an airport tower ladder, the claimant observed the technicians to ensure they properly used fall protection equipment (e.g., full-body harness) to avoid serious accidents. If a guardrail was being replaced, he ensured it met current FAA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requirements.
When the claimant received telephone calls or emails from SSC managers with complaints from employees about foul or musty odors in the air, coughing, or headaches, he went onsite. He operated an indoor air quality meter to take readings and scanned the areas the affected employees occupied. If issues were found, the claimant gathered and provided the information to a CIH who determined the mitigation steps that should be taken. For example, if reading levels showed mold was present the CIH recommended using a chemical that destroyed mold growth. If the claimant found evidence of water intrusion (e.g., water/ceiling stains, bulging dry wall, and water drips), the CIH recommended the water’s entrance into the facility be eliminated by repairing the roof. The claimant provided the information to the SSC manager for consideration and action.
When assigned to this position, the claimant also conducted radiation surveys required every three years or after maintenance was performed on the radar equipment. He followed the appropriate checklist and operated two pieces of testing equipment that provided the ionizing and non-ionizing radiation levels emitted into the air, which he electronically recorded. The claimant compared the information to the safety level standards from agencies including the FAA and OSHA. After he input the results in the report template, he sent it to the Radiation Officer for review and approval. The report was then uploaded to the database that held such reports.
FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position
Our review disclosed the duties described in the PD/JAT for this position are not completely accurate in that it describes numerous duties performed by other FAA organizations or higher-level management officials. For instance, the claimant did not develop programs, represent the FAA with external Government agencies and regulators, or act as a principal specialist to develop new and innovative approaches or as a team leader to define and direct challenging programs. He did not share responsibility for the performance of programs that frequently affect more than one line of business/staff office (LOB/SO) or the FAA as a whole. Throughout the PD/JAT it states the claimant is involved in aspects of projects, but he did not perform project work. He did not acquire or allocate resources to accomplish activities within established schedules and budgetary requirements. The claimant did not plan, assign, accept, or reject project tasks performed under varying contracts to provide occupational safety and health support. He did not create new solutions and policy interpretations. The claimant did not have broad discretion to ensure the alignment of organizational goals and policies and the requirements of the projects and/or other work activities. He did not formulate and recommend to senior management positions on major projects/ policies/issues.
The PD/JAT also overstates duties performed by the claimant. For instance, it states the claimant provided expert guidance and instruction both internally and externally to address diverse, complex issues which often crossed multiple projects, programs, and/or functional areas. Rather, our fact-finding disclosed the claimant provided guidance internally that addressed his assigned programs. The PD/JAT states the claimant oversaw multidisciplinary teams that investigated employee hazards and developed cost effective solutions and projects to mitigate them. Instead, the claimant coordinated multidisciplinary team member activities. The PD/JAT states he developed and recommended approaches to address current and anticipated problems and issues. However, the approaches developed and recommended were based on existing standards and regulations. The PD/JAT states the claimant defined and developed internal policies and procedures. However, the internal procedures developed were based on requirements in existing standards and regulations. The PD/JAT states broad policies and objectives provided general guidance for addressing issues but often required the development of new approaches. Instead, the claimant used specific policies to provide guidance to SECMs that resolved assigned EOSH program issues and questions. The PD/JAT notes the claimant often represented the major subdivision or LOB/SO as a principal point of contact to provide advice and guidance on the application of policies and procedures. Instead, the claimant provided advice and guidance to SECMs regarding EOSH-related questions. The PD/JAT states the claimant prepared, reviewed, and recommended approvals of major reports on projects, programs, and other work activities for internal and external distribution. Instead, the claimant participated in the preparation of reports as part of a team that developed safety improvement recommendations that were provided to the SECMs for the SSC managers consideration and action. The PD/JAT states the claimant developed briefings to convey strategic vision and/or organizational policies to internal and external audiences. Instead, the claimant updated group and district-level managers regarding such topics as the numbers of safety-related accidents and employees trained so far in the year.
The actual duties performed by the claimant included providing second-level technical support to his assigned SECMs regarding two established EOSH programs. He serviced the eastern service area (ESA), which encompasses the Boston District, New York District, Washington, DC District, Atlanta District, Memphis District, Jacksonville District, and Miami District.
The claimant served as the point-of-contact (POC) for questions concerning the Fall Protection Program (FPP) and Electrical Safety Program (ESP). When SECMs in the ESA could not respond to questions that involved the programs above, the claimant was contacted. For instance, he responded to requests for information about ladder safety from the SECMs for the SSC managers related to the FPP. When asked whether a ladder was safe to continue using when making repairs, the claimant needed to determine if the ladder created a safety hazard when used by the SSC technicians. The SECM forwarded to the claimant pictures and measurements of the ladder. He used the information provided and compared it against established standards and regulations (e.g., OSHA, ANSI, and FAA) to search for answers. If the ladder did not meet the current safety standards, the claimant recommended replacements that met the needs of the SSC manager, which he provided to the SECM. The claimant also responded to requests for information about working safely with various electrical systems from the SECMs for the SSC managers related to the ESP. When asked which PPE are required when repairing certain systems (e.g., powerlines, substations, water or sewer line systems), the claimant searched established standards and regulations (e.g., OSHA, FAA, and the National Electrical Code) for answers, which he provided to the SECM. After the FAA-level FPP program manager determined two radar systems were not safe for the SSC technicians to climb, the claimant informed the SECMs and provided information regarding where to order safety emergency notices to be placed on the systems. In addition, the claimant passed along updated FAA FPP and ESP policies and procedures to the SECMs, as needed.
The claimant served as part of a team (i.e., claimant, SECM, and EOSH manager) that reviewed accident investigation reports that involved ESA employees in an accident or near accident and recommended actions to be taken for the FPP and ESP. For instance, an SSC technician descended a ladder, fell off, and was injured. The SECM interviewed and obtained the relevant facts from the injured technician and the SSC manager, which were shared with the other team members. After the information was reviewed, the team members discussed the safety improvements to recommend (i.e., additional training for all the technicians to include the proper handling and use of the safety equipment) in their report to the SSC manager for consideration and implementation. The claimant also served as part of a team regarding electrical mishaps, such as an SSC technician who experienced an electrical shock and required treatment in the hospital. After the team members reviewed and discussed all the information that pertained to the accident, they recommended additional equipment training and the development of SOPs for the equipment to be followed by all the technicians.
Evaluation
Period of the claim
As provided for in 5 CFR 551.702(b), all FLSA pay claims filed on or after June 30, 1994, are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, except in cases of willful violation where the statute of limitations is three years. A claimant or a claimant’s designated representative must submit a written claim to either the agency employing the claimant during the claim period or to OPM in order to preserve the claim period. The date the agency or OPM receives the claim is the date which determines the period of possible back pay entitlement (5 CFR 551.702(c)). The claimant makes no assertion of willful violation. The record shows the claim was received by OPM on March 28, 2022, and therefore it is subject to a two-year statute of limitations commencing on March 28, 2020.
Applicability of the FLSA
Sections 551.201 and 551.202 of title 5, CFR require an employing agency to designate an employee FLSA exempt only when the agency correctly determines that the employee meets one or more of the exemption criteria. There are three exemption categories applied to Federal employees: executive (5 CFR 551.205), administrative (5 CFR 551.206), and professional (including learned professional) (5 CFR 551.207 and 208).. In all exemption determinations, the agency must observe the following principles: (a) Each employee is presumed to be FLSA nonexempt unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions; (b) exemption criteria must be narrowly construed to apply only to those employees who are clearly within the terms and spirit of the exemption; (c) the burden of proof rests with the agency that asserts the exemption; (d) an employee who clearly meets the criteria for exemption must be designated FLSA exempt. If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an employee meets the criteria for exemption, the employee should be designated FLSA nonexempt; and (e) while established position descriptions and titles may assist in making initial FLSA exemption determinations, the designation of a position’s FLSA status ultimately rests on the duties actually performed by the employee.
As documented in the FAA FLSA exemption worksheets, neither the claimant nor the agency asserts the claimant’s work described in the two positions identified above meets the executive or professional exemption and based on careful review of the record, we agree. However, the agency believes the claimant’s work in both positions meets the administrative exemption criteria of the FLSA, but the claimant disagrees. Therefore, our analyses below are limited to the administrative exemption criteria in 5 CFR 551.206.
Administrative exemption criteria
The current regulations in 5 CFR 551.206 establish the administrative exemption criteria, in relevant part, as follows:
An administrative employee is an employee whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations, as distinguished from production functions, of the employer or the employer’s customers and whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
(a) In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The term “matters of significance” refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.
(b) The phrase discretion and independent judgment must be applied in light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises. Factors to consider when determining whether an employee exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance include, but are not limited to, whether the employee:
(1) Has authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices;
(2) Carries out major assignments in conducting the operation of the organization;
(3) Performs work that affects the organization’s operations to a substantial degree, even if the employee’s assignments are related to operation of a particular segment of the organization;
(4) Has the authority to commit the employer in matters that have significant financial impact;
(5) Has authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without prior approval;
(6) Has authority to negotiate and bind the organization on significant matters;
(7) Provides consultation or expert advice to management;
(8) Is involved in planning long-or short-term organizational objectives;
(9) Investigates and resolves matters of significance on behalf of management;
(10) Represents the organization in handling complaints, arbitrating disputes, or resolving grievances.
(c) The exercise of discretion and independent judgment implies the employee has authority to make an independent decision, free from immediate direction or supervision. However, an employee can exercise discretion and independent judgment even if the employee’s decisions or recommendations are reviewed at a higher level. Thus, the term discretion and independent judgment does not require that decisions made by an employee have a finality that goes with unlimited authority and a complete absence of review. The decisions made as a result of the exercise of discretion and independent judgment may consist of recommendations for action rather than the actual taking of action. The fact that an employee’s decision may be subject to review and that upon occasion the decisions are revised or reversed after review does not mean that the employee is not exercising discretion and independent judgment.
(d) An organization’s workload may make it necessary to employ a number of employees to perform the same or similar work. The fact that many employees perform identical work or work of the same relative importance does not mean that the work of each such employee does not involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
(e) The exercise of discretion and independent judgment must be more than the use of skill in applying well-established techniques, procedures, or specific standards described in manuals or other sources.
FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position
The claimant’s work in this position does not meet the administrative exemption criteria. While the claimant performed office or non-manual work, his duties were not an extension of the agency’s management process or general business operations and did not help with or affect the management of significant matters within the agency. Rather, the claimant served as a SECM and mostly performed operational tasks and provided technical support regarding various EOSH programs to his assigned SSC managers. In addition, he did not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance as described in the ten factors of 5 CFR 551.206(b). For example, he had no authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices at his level. Work that significantly affected the formulation or execution of policies or practices generally refers to employees who actually make policy, make policy decisions, or develop proposals that are acted on by others. This authority was outside the scope of the claimant’s position. Instead, the claimant followed established guidelines and methods when he provided recommendations to SSC managers (e.g., ensured a replacement guardrail met current OSHA and ANSI requirements). He also followed existing SOPs, inspection/survey checklists and completed a SOW template, as needed.
The claimant did not carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of the organization. He worked specifically with SSC managers as needed so their questions and concerns were resolved regarding his assigned EOSH programs within an organization that provided various types of technical operations support to the SSC managers. The claimant carried out very specific requests for technical assistance, rather than major assignments in conducting the operations of his organization, thus his work did not affect the organization’s operations to a substantial degree. He did not have the authority to commit the employer in matters that had significant financial impact. The claimant was not presented with situations requiring approval, for example, for additional money, people, or other resources to conduct his inspection /survey work. That authority rested with higher-level management officials.
The situations the claimant regularly dealt with did not require him to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures. He did not perform any work requiring him to have authority to negotiate and bind his organization on significant matters or make significant decisions. Although he used specialized knowledge in the EOSH field, he did not consult with and provide expert advice to FAA management relating to the overall management or the general business operations of the unit, such as would be provided by certain management consultant or program analyst positions. Rather, the claimant provided technical advice and recommendations to SSC managers related to EOSH program rules and regulations.
The claimant did not plan long or short-term organizational objectives for the organization. He was not involved in the strategic planning efforts that may have served to establish, achieve, or otherwise impact either the long-or short-term objectives or goals of the organization. He had no responsibility to investigate and resolve matters of significance on behalf of management or represent the organization in handling complaints, arbitration of disputes, or resolution of grievances. Those matters were within the authority and responsibility of higher-level management officials.
While the claimant performed his work independently, free of immediate supervision and direction, in contrast to the application of discretion and independent judgment, he used knowledge and skill in applying well-established rules, regulations, standards, and written precedents which were applicable to the work assigned. Therefore, the decisions he made were not significant within the meaning of the regulation in that they affected the procedural details of his inspection/survey work and technical support provided and primarily focused on deciding whether a situation conformed to clearly applicable criteria and recommended solutions met established EOSH program requirements.
Based on the preceding analysis, the claimant’s FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist work does not meet the administrative exemption criteria.
FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position
The claimant’s work in this position does not meet the administrative exemption criteria. While the claimant performed office or non-manual work, his duties were not an extension of the agency’s management process or general business operations and did not help with or affect the management of significant matters within the agency. Rather, the claimant primarily furnished second-level technical support to SECMs regarding his assigned EOSH programs. In addition, he did not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance as described in the ten factors of 5 CFR 551.206(b). For example, he had no authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices at his level. Work that significantly affected the formulation or execution of policies or practices generally refers to employees who actually make policy, make policy decisions, or develop proposals that are acted on by others. This authority was outside the scope of the claimant’s position. Instead, he provided technical support to SECMS concerning his assigned programs and was part of a team that reviewed accident investigation reports and provided recommendations to affected SSC managers.
The claimant did not carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of the organization. He worked specifically with ESA SECMs and provided technical support, so the SSC managers questions and concerns were resolved regarding his assigned safety programs within an organization that provided SOH programmatic support to all the districts within the service areas. The claimant carried out very specific requests for technical assistance, rather than major assignments in conducting the operations of his organization, thus his work did not affect the organization’s operations to a substantial degree. He did not have the authority to commit the employer in matters that had a significant financial impact. That authority rested with higher-level management officials.
The situations the claimant regularly dealt with did not require him to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures. He did not perform any work requiring him to have authority to negotiate and bind his organization on significant matters or make significant decisions. Although he used specialized knowledge in the EOSH field, he did not consult with and provide expert advice to FAA management relating to the overall management or the general business operations of the unit, such as would be provided by certain management consultant or program analyst positions. Rather, the claimant provided technical advice and/or recommendations to SECMs related to his assigned safety programs requirements. He also passed along updated FAA FPP and ESP policies and procedures to the SECMs.
The claimant did not plan long or short-term organizational objectives for the organization. He was not involved in the strategic planning efforts that may have served to establish, achieve, or otherwise impact either the long-or short-term objectives or goals of the organization. He had no responsibility to investigate and resolve matters of significance on behalf of management or represent the organization in handling complaints, arbitration of disputes, or resolution of grievances. Those matters were within the authority and responsibility of higher-level management officials.
While the claimant performed his work independently, free of immediate supervision and direction, in contrast to the application of discretion and independent judgment, he used knowledge and skill in applying well-established rules, regulations, standards, and written precedents which were applicable to the work assigned. Therefore, the decisions he made were not significant within the meaning of the regulation in that they affected the procedural details of the technical support he provided and primarily focused on deciding whether the recommended solutions met established requirements.
Based on the preceding analysis, the claimant’s FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist work does not meet the administrative exemption criteria.
Decision on FLSA Coverage
The claimant’s work in the FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist and FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist positions does not meet the executive, professional, or administrative exemption criteria. Therefore, his positions during the claim period are properly designated as FLSA nonexempt, i.e., covered by the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA. He is entitled to compensation for all overtime hours worked and travel comp time hours earned at the FLSA overtime pay rate. Since he used all his regular comp time hours earned, he is not entitled to further compensation for those hours. While our decision specifically establishes the claim period for preserving the claim, by implication it also applies to the period going forward if the major duties and responsibilities evaluated in this decision essentially remain the same. In particular, the agency must verify whether the claimant performs the same major duties and responsibilities described in this decision for the FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position, which appears to be the position to which he was promoted soon after the end of the claim period. The claim was received by OPM on March 28, 2022, and the claimant is entitled to receive back pay for two years prior to that date. The agency must follow the compliance requirements on page ii of this decision.
The agency provided Time and Attendance records (i.e., copies of timecards from CASTLE) showing the claimant worked overtime hours during certain pay periods. The agency must reconstruct the claimant’s pay records for the period of the claim and compute back pay for the difference between the FLSA overtime pay owed and any overtime pay already paid and any back pay owed for travel comp time hours earned under the agency’s core compensation pay system, and interest on the back pay, as required under 5 CFR 550.805 and 550.806, respectively. If the claimant believes the agency incorrectly computes the amount, he may file a new FLSA claim with this office.