Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Fair Labor Standards Act Decision
Under section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code
Damon B. Ford
Classification Appeals and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
08/27/2024
Date
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 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.
On April 4, 2022, OPM received an FLSA claim from representatives of the claimant challenging the exemption status of his positions when he worked approximately 1,000 overtime (OT) hours between March 2020 and February 2022. During this period the claimant occupied a Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, FV-0018-I, (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), EOSH Support Operations Group, Technical Services Branch, Technical Operations Division, in Melville, New York, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT), with duty station in Trenton, New Jersey. During another part of the claim period, he occupied a Safety and Occupational Health Specialist, FV-0018-J, position (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 Trenton, New Jersey.
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 1,000 hours of overtime worked during the period noted above, including the difference between the OT pay he received and the FLSA overtime pay rate he is owed. We have accepted and decided this claim under section 4(f) of the FLSA of 1938, and codified as section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code (U.S.C.).
During the claim period, the claimant occupied two positions. Between April 4, 2020, and February 26, 2022, he occupied an FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position, under position document (PD)/job analysis tool (JAT) number TTNW3CI. Between February 27, 2022, and April 4, 2022, the claimant 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 for the two positions and requests additional FLSA overtime pay for the periods noted above. The claimant states he received non-FLSA OT pay for approximately 1,172.4 hours when he occupied the FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position, and non-FLSA OT pay for approximately 6.75 hours when he occupied the FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position. In adjudicating this claim, our primary 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.
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 (#TTNW3CI) for this position are not completely accurate because it overstates duties performed by the claimant. 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. Rather, our fact finding disclosed the claimant was responsible for informing the Service Support Center (SSC) managers on ways to remain compliant with established EOSH regulations. The PD/JAT states the claimant served as the EOSH expert for the district’s ATO EOSH operational program. Instead, the claimant provided EOSH technical guidance regarding his assigned programs.
The PD/JAT also describes duties performed by other FAA organizations or were higher-level management duties. For instance, the claimant did not develop policy, evaluate EOSH programs, develop scopes of work, or acquire resources to administer the programs.
As a Safety and Environmental Compliance Manager (SECM) the claimant provided technical support regarding various EOSH programs to his assigned SSC managers and technicians. He initially served the eastern service area (ESA) Philadelphia District, which encompassed New York (NY), New Jersey (NJ), and Pennsylvania (PA) between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. In October 2020, the ESA Philadelphia District was absorbed into the NY District, which the claimant began serving and encompassed NY, NJ, PA, Delaware, and Maryland.
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. The claimant or a contractor who was physically located closer to the facility (than the claimant) could be assigned to oversee the cleaning process. Additionally, a second SECM or a Joint Air Traffic Operations Command Crisis Action Team (JCAT) Duty Officer served as the coordinator (e.g., set up the date and time with the contractor to send workers to clean the facility). To perform these duties, 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 or JCAT Duty Officer initiated the report, and input the background information (e.g., facility location, contractor name, and the times the cleaning began and ended) into the 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.
The claimant identified violations of established EOSH guidelines within Work Inspection Tool (WIT) reports submitted through Team A inspections and provided assistance to the SSC managers, so the deficiencies were resolved. He recommended abatement of violations and work stoppage in situations where obvious violations of policy or immediate danger to personnel, equipment, or property existed. For example, when fall hazards were cited on air traffic control towers, the claimant’s actions included gathering and recommending to the SSC manager types of guardrails that met current FAA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) requirements for consideration. He coordinated with the SSC managers and others to facilitate abatement of the violations.
When an SSC manager informed the claimant his/her subordinates needed EOSH training, he contacted the SSC manager to request the names of the technicians and the dates and times available. Based on the information provided, the claimant set-up a ZOOM call, put together and presented the training material, and provided the course information to the attendees. The training was two to three hours and based on the established requirements of the agencies with jurisdiction over the training topic including OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Afterward a copy of the sign-in sheet verifying who attended was provided to Program Support Office personnel and forwarded to the training personnel, so credit was given to the attendees. The sign-in sheet was also provided to the SSC manager, so he/she knew which subordinates completed the training.
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 to perform an inspection using the appropriate checklist. 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 the information and prepared a report with recommendations, which was forwarded to his supervisor and other technical support staff (e.g., certified industrial hygienist) for review and comment. If reading levels showed mold was present the mitigation could require 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 mitigation could require eliminating the water’s entrance into the facility by repairing the roof. The claimant provided the information to the SSC manager for consideration and coordinated with others to facilitate abatement of the hazard.
The claimant gathered and categorized previous years laboratory samples and reports (e.g., drinking water data analysis, ladder system and control tower information for the fall protection program, and asbestos materials information for the SSCs) and uploaded the information into spreadsheets and databases. The ESA EOSH managers used the data to look for trends over time to improve the various EOSH programs.
FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position
Our review disclosed the duties described in the PD/JAT (#AHFS60J) for this position are not completely accurate in that it describes numerous duties performed by other FAA organizations or are higher-level management duties. For instance, the claimant did not develop occupational safety and health design changes, work with senior management, represent the FAA with external Government agencies and regulators, or act as a principal specialist to develop new and innovative approaches. 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. He did not apply experience and expert knowledge to conduct functional activities for projects/programs that required the development of new and innovative approaches. The claimant did not identify and resolve challenging problems or issues that often-crossed organizational boundaries and impacted on the accomplishment of strategic objectives. He did not plan, assign, accept, or reject project tasks performed under varying contracts to provide occupational safety and health support. The claimant was not asked to develop new policies, procedures, and approaches. 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 oversaw multidisciplinary teams that investigated employee hazards and developed cost effective solutions and projects to mitigate them. Rather, our fact-finding disclosed the claimant did not oversee such teams but led one of them. The PD/JAT states the claimant provides expert guidance and instruction both internally and externally to address diverse, complex issues which often cross multiple projects, programs, and/or functional areas. Instead, our fact-finding disclosed the claimant provided guidance internally that addressed his assigned programs. The PD/JAT states he recommends 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 defines and develops 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 states he develops safety education programs. Instead, the claimant implemented existing programs. The PD/JAT states 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 develops 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.
Upon promotion to the FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position the claimant’s supervisor stated he immediately began performing the work of this position. Additionally, the claimant and his supervisor stated he also completed some work from his previous position. The claimant provided second-level technical support to his assigned SECMs regarding two established EOSH programs. He serviced the eastern service area (ESA), which encompassed 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 Confined Space Program (CSP) 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, the claimant responded to questions about repairs needed in a confined space (e.g., elevator pit, trench, and sewer line) related to the (CSP). He reviewed the training records for the SSC technicians who supported the airport for those who were FAA-certified in the technical field to perform the work (i.e., technical training) and completed safety training to enter a confined space (i.e., compliance training). The claimant provided the names of the technicians who completed both types of training to the SECM. If none completed both, he provided the names of those who completed one type of training to the SECM for the SSC manager to decide who would perform the repairs (e.g., contract out the repairs or select one of the technicians). 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. If 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. In addition, the claimant passed along updated FAA CSP and ESP policies and procedures to the SECMs, as needed.
The claimant served as a Government Technical Interpreter for the Safety/ Environmental Service Area Support (SESAS) Program. He used his SOH knowledge to provide technical support to the Contracting Officer (CO). For instance, the claimant reviewed contract plans and specifications for obvious nonconformance with established SOH guidelines and EOSH standards (e.g., SOH related tasks were incorporated in the statement of work). He also determined if the SOH aspects of the contracted work were performed in accordance with the parameters of the contract.
In reaching our FLSA decision, we carefully reviewed all documents and information provided by the claimant, his representatives, and the agency, as well as information gained through interviews with the claimant and two of his former supervisors covering the period when he occupied both positions.
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. OPM received his claim on April 4, 2022, and therefore it is subject to a two-year statute of limitations commencing on April 4,2020. However, the claimant’s representative seeks overtime pay commencing in March 2020. Because that date exceeds the two-year statute of limitations it is time barred.
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 (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.
FV-0018-I, SOH Specialist position
FV-0018-J, SOH Specialist position
As documented in the “Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Exemption Worksheet” dated January 26, 2023, for the FV-0018-I, SOH position, and the FLSA exemption worksheet for the FV-0018-J, SOH position dated July 28, 2020, the agency determined the duties of both positions do not meet the executive or professional (including learned professional) exemption criteria and the claimant and his representatives do not disagree. After careful review we concur with the agency thus have not addressed those criteria separately in our evaluation. The agency determined the duties and responsibilities described in the claimant’s PD/JATs for both positions meet the administrative exemption criteria of the FLSA provided in 5 CFR 551.206, but the claimant disagrees. Therefore, our analyses below are limited to the administrative exemption criteria of the FLSA.
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 provided technical support covering 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., recommending types of guardrails that met current FAA, OSHA, and ANSI requirements). He also followed existing SOPs and inspection checklists, 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 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 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 evaluation, 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 he 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 reviewed contract plans and specifications for conformance with established EOSH guidelines and standards.
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 CSP 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.
The claimant’s work in both 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 at the FLSA overtime pay rate, including any compensatory time earned but not used. The claim was received by OPM on April 4, 2022, and the claimant is entitled to receive back pay for two years prior to that date, i.e., April 4, 2020. The agency must follow the compliance requirements on page ii of this decision. While our decision specifically establishes the claim period for purposes of preserving the claim, by extension it also applies to the period going forward if the major duties and responsibilities evaluated in the 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 shortly before the end of the claim period.
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 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.