B-140583, SEPT. 5, 1968
Highlights
REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COORDINATED FEDERAL WAGE SYSTEM BY CHAPTER 532 OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL YOU MAY BY REGULATION DEFINE THE TERM "EQUIVALENT INCREASE" AS IT IS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 5335 TO EXCLUDE WAGE SCHEDULE INCREASES GRANTED EMPLOYEES UNDER THAT SYSTEM. THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEFINITION WOULD BE TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES WHO ARE TRANSFERRED FROM WAGE BOARD POSITIONS TO GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITIONS TO HAVE THEIR SERVICE IN THE WAGE BOARD POSITIONS COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR STEP INCREASES IN THEIR GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED WAGE SCHEDULE INCREASES DURING SUCH WAGE BOARD SERVICE.
B-140583, SEPT. 5, 1968
TO MR. MACY:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1968, REQUESTING OUR DECISION WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COORDINATED FEDERAL WAGE SYSTEM BY CHAPTER 532 OF THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL YOU MAY BY REGULATION DEFINE THE TERM "EQUIVALENT INCREASE" AS IT IS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 5335 TO EXCLUDE WAGE SCHEDULE INCREASES GRANTED EMPLOYEES UNDER THAT SYSTEM.
THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DEFINITION WOULD BE TO ALLOW EMPLOYEES WHO ARE TRANSFERRED FROM WAGE BOARD POSITIONS TO GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITIONS TO HAVE THEIR SERVICE IN THE WAGE BOARD POSITIONS COUNTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR STEP INCREASES IN THEIR GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED WAGE SCHEDULE INCREASES DURING SUCH WAGE BOARD SERVICE.
WE HELD IN 39 COMP. GEN. 270, WHICH YOU CITE, THAT A WAGE INCREASE RECEIVED BY A WAGE BOARD EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO HIS TRANSFER TO A GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITION WAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE HAD RECEIVED AN EQUIVALENT INCREASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR A STEP INCREASE IN THE GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITION. THE RULE OF THAT DECISION WAS BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW NOW CONTAINED IN 5 U.S.C. 5335 WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT A GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A STEP INCREASE IF HE HAS RECEIVED "AN EQUIVALENT INCREASE IN PAY FROM ANY CAUSE DURING" THE WAITING PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THAT SECTION AND THAT ONLY AN "INCREASE IN PAY GRANTED BY STATUTE IS NOT (TO BE CONSIDERED) AN EQUIVALENT INCREASE IN PAY" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT PROVISION.
THE COORDINATED WAGE SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVELY UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE DECISION 39 COMP. GEN. 270 WAS RENDERED. THEREFORE, WE PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR THE VIEW THAT AN INCREASE GRANTED UNDER THE COORDINATED FEDERAL WAGE SYSTEM IS NOT AN "EQUIVALENT INCREASE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 5335, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT BE SO DEFINED BY REGULATION OR OTHERWISE.