B-256891 May 5, 1994
Highlights
It is explained that we will no longer accept cases from members of a collective bargaining unit who are subject to a negotiated grievance procedure that does not expressly exclude the issue presented to our Office. In this case the claim essentially is one for backpay. It is not excluded from the negotiated grievance procedure. The Steward also is advised to the extent it is a request for a promotion on the basis the duties are misclassified. Requesting reconsideration of the determination of our Claims Group that the General Accounting Office does not have jurisdiction over a claim that you presented on behalf of Mr. We will no longer accept cases from employees who are members of a collective bargaining unit who are subject to a negotiated grievance procedure that does not expressly exclude the issue presented to our Office.
B-256891 May 5, 1994
DIGEST
Mr. Jeffrey Pasquale Chief Steward, AFGE Local 3854 43417 Carol Drive Lancaster, California 93535
Dear Mr. Pasquale:
This responds to your letter dated September 20, 1993, which we received by means of facsimile transmission of March 29, 1994, requesting reconsideration of the determination of our Claims Group that the General Accounting Office does not have jurisdiction over a claim that you presented on behalf of Mr. Terry Babcock.
As the Claims Group advised you, under our decision in Cecil E. Riggs, et al., 71 Comp.Gen. 374 (1992), copy enclosed, we will no longer accept cases from employees who are members of a collective bargaining unit who are subject to a negotiated grievance procedure that does not expressly exclude the issue presented to our Office. Mr. Babcock is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. You note that his claim, which essentially is one for backpay for performing higher graded work, is not excluded under the collective bargaining agreement. In fact, you state that you filed a grievance on the matter, but not on the basis which you now wish to assert, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Regardless of the different basis on which you now wish to assert the claim, as explained in our Riggs decision, we have no jurisdiction to consider it.
I may also advise you that as to your assertion that Mr. Babcock is entitled to a promotion from WG-08 to WG-10 for performing work classified at the higher grade, this too is a matter not within our jurisdiction regardless of whether the employee is covered by a negotiated grievance procedure. That is because the issue involved is whether the duties Mr. Babcock performs are properly classified, and a classification determination may only be made by the employing agency, subject to appeal to the Office of Personnel Management, not by our Office. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5112 (1988) and 5 C.F.R. Part 511 (1993).
I hope this information will be useful in your assistance to Mr. Babcock.
Sincerely yours,
David F. Engstrom Assistant General Counsel
Enclosure