A-4751, NOVEMBER 29, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 493

A-4751: Nov 29, 1924

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

CLASSIFICATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN THIS DECISION VARIOUS QUESTIONS ARE DECIDED UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 4. YOU HAVE MADE AN EXTENDED STATEMENT CONTAINING DEFINITIONS OF TERMS. WHILE IT IS THOUGHT UNNECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DECISION TO MEET EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION AND ARGUMENT SUBMITTED. THE QUESTIONS WILL BE QUOTED AND ANSWERED IN THE ORDER SUBMITTED: 1. AS A POSITION IS IN A GRADE OR CLASS. IS NOT A VACANCY THEREFORE IN THE GRADE OR CLASS. MAY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ABOLISH OR CREATE POSITIONS AT WILL WHERE THE DUTIES ARE NOT FIXED BY BASIC LAW? IF QUESTION 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. IS NOT A "VACANCY" ANY UNOCCUPIED POSITION WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY INTEND TO FILL.

A-4751, NOVEMBER 29, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 493

CLASSIFICATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN THIS DECISION VARIOUS QUESTIONS ARE DECIDED UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1488, AND THE AVERAGE PROVISIONS APPEARING IN THE APPROPRIATION ACTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1925, INVOLVING VACANCIES IN GRADES, ABOLISHMENT AND CREATION OF POSITIONS, PROMOTIONS, DEMOTIONS, TRANSFERS, REINSTATEMENTS, AND REASSIGNMENTS. FOR POINTS INVOLVED SEE DECISION.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 29, 1924:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED YOUR SUBMISSION OF AUGUST 15, 1924, REQUESTING DECISION OF 20 QUESTIONS, WITH A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS THEREOF, UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923, AND THE ,AVERAGE PROVISION" APPEARING IN THE APPROPRIATION ACTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1925, PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

YOU HAVE MADE AN EXTENDED STATEMENT CONTAINING DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, COMMENTS, AND ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE THE ANSWERS SHOULD BE TO CERTAIN OF THE QUESTIONS. WHILE IT IS THOUGHT UNNECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DECISION TO MEET EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION AND ARGUMENT SUBMITTED, THE ENTIRE STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN A MOST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSIONS HEREIN ANNOUNCED.

THE QUESTIONS WILL BE QUOTED AND ANSWERED IN THE ORDER SUBMITTED:

1. AS A POSITION IS IN A GRADE OR CLASS, DOES NOT THE SALARY RANGE OF THE GRADE OR CLASS ATTACH TO THE POSITION RATHER THAN A PARTICULAR RATE WITHIN THE RANGE, AND IS NOT A VACANCY THEREFORE IN THE GRADE OR CLASS, COMPRISING THE ENTIRE RANGE, RATHER THAN AT A PARTICULAR RATE WITHIN THE RANGE?

YES. SEE DECISION OF JULY 29, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 126, 128.

2. MAY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ABOLISH OR CREATE POSITIONS AT WILL WHERE THE DUTIES ARE NOT FIXED BY BASIC LAW?

YES; WHEN THE NEEDS OF THE SERVICE REQUIRE, THE ALLOCATION OF A POSITION SO CREATED TO BE WITH APPROVAL OF THE PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION BOARD. SECTION 3 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT. SEE ALSO ANSWER TO QUESTION 11.

3. IF QUESTION 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IS NOT A "VACANCY" ANY UNOCCUPIED POSITION WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY INTEND TO FILL, WHETHER FORMERLY FILLED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN SEPARATED OR NEWLY CREATED?

YES. 4 COMP. GEN. 126, 128.

4. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION OF THE APPROPRIATION ACTS IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS REASSIGNED TO A POSITION IN THE SAME GRADE OR CLASS IN THE SAME BUREAU OR SUBDIVISION, OR IN A DIFFERENT BUREAU OR SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT, TO BE PAID INITIALLY AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, SUBJECT TO SUCH SYSTEMS OF EFFICIENCY RATING OR OTHER RULES AS MAY BE PROMULGATED BY PROPER AUTHORITY?

YES. SEE DECISION OF JULY 19, 1924. 4 COMP. GEN. 77.

5. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS PROMOTED TO A POSITION IN A HIGHER GRADE OR CLASS WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT BE PAID INITIALLY AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE GRADE OR CLASS, SUBJECT TO SUCH SYSTEMS OF EFFICIENCY RATING OR OTHER RULES AS MAY BE PROMULGATED BY PROPER AUTHORITY?

YES.

6. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS DEMOTED TO A POSITION IN A LOWER GRADE OR CLASS WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT BE PAID INITIALLY AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE, SUBJECT TO SUCH SYSTEMS OF EFFICIENCY RATING OR OTHER RULES AS MAY BE PROMULGATED BY PROPER AUTHORITY?

YES.

7. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER TO A POSITION IN THE SAME GRADE BE PAID INITIALLY---

(A) AT THE RATE OF COMPENSATION HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING?

(B) AT A HIGHER RATE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE?

(C) AT A LOWER RATE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE?

(A) YES; (B) NO, 3 COMP. GEN. 1006; (C) YES.

8. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY PROMOTED TO A POSITION IN A HIGHER GRADE, BE PAID INITIALLY---

(A) AT ANY ONE OF THE RATES WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE TO WHICH

PROMOTED; OR

(B) IF HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING LESS THAN THE MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE

TO WHICH PROMOTED MUST HE BE PAID AT THAT MINIMUM RATE; OR,

(C) WHEN THE GRADE RANGES OVERLAP, IF HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING MORE THAN

THE MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH PROMOTED MUST HE BE

PAID AT THE SAME RATE?

(A) YES; IF THERE IS MADE A PROPER COMPARISON OF EFFICIENCY RATINGS BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE TRANSFERRED TO THE GRADE FROM ANOTHER OFFICE AND THOSE ALREADY IN THE GRADE. WHILE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT WOULD SEEM TO PROVIDE THAT TRANSFERS FROM A LOWER TO A CT WOULD SEEM TO PROVIDE THAT TRANSFERS FROM A LOWER TO A HIGHER GRADE BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE AT THE MINIMUM SALARY RATE OF THE HIGHER GRADE, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THOSE ALREADY IN THE GRADE IN THE OFFICE TO WHICH TRANSFERRED IT IS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE TRANSFER THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE TO BE PROMOTED WITHIN THE GRADE TO WHICH TRANSFERRED BY COMPARING HIS EFFICIENCY WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF THOSE ALREADY IN THE GRADE. SEE 4 COMP. GEN. 78.

(B) AND (C) NOT NECESSARILY, IF THE RESULT OF THE EFFICIENCY COMPARISON JUSTIFIES A HIGHER RATE OF COMPENSATION.

9. WHEN THE AVERAGE PROVISION IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER AND DEMOTED TO A POSITION IN A LOWER GRADE BE PAID INITIALLY---

(A) AT ANY ONE OF THE RATES IN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE TO WHICH

DEMOTED; OR

(B) WHERE THE GRADES RANGES OVERLAP, MUST HE BE PAID INITIALLY AT ONE

OF THE RATES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE GRADE WHICH IS NOT HIGHER

THAN HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING?

IT WAS HELD IN DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1924, 3 COMP. GEN. 1006, AS FOLLOWS:

* * * THEREFORE, AN EMPLOYEE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE GRADE TO A LOWER GRADE CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO A POSITION IN WHICH THERE IS A VACANCY IN THE GRADE TO WHICH TRANSFERRED AT A SALARY NOT IN EXCESS OF THE SALARY OF THE POSITION FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED, ASSUMING, OF COURSE, THAT THE TRANSFER IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE ACTS, AND REGULATIONS MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF.

ACCORDINGLY, IN ANSWER TO (A) AND (B), IT MAY BE STATED THAT TRANSFERS MAY BE MADE AT ANY ONE OF THE RATES IN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE TO WHICH DEMOTED NOT IN EXCESS OF THE RATE THE EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING IN THE GRADE FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED. HIS RIGHT TO PROMOTION THEREAFTER IN THE GRADE TO WHICH TRANSFERRED IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY.

10. WHEN THE AVERAGE IS NOT A FACTOR, MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS REINSTATED IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT BE PAID INITIALLY---

(A) AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE RANGE FOR THE GRADE OR CLASS TO WHICH THE

POSITION IS ALLOCATED, WHETHER OF THE SAME, A HIGHER, OR A

LOWER GRADE OR CLASS THAN THE POSITION FROM WHICH HE WAS

SEPARATED; OR

(B) IF REINSTATED TO A POSITION IN THE SAME GRADE OR CLASS MUST HE

BE PAID INITIALLY AT A RATE NOT HIGHER THAN HE WAS RECEIVING

WHEN SEPARATED, OR IF SEPARATED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1924, AT A RATE

NOT HIGHER THAN THE RATE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED INITIALLY

UNDER THE RULES OF SECTION 6 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT HAD HE

BEEN IN THE POSITION ON JULY 1, 1924; OR

(C) IF REINSTATED TO A POSITION IN A HIGHER GRADE THAN THAT FROM

WHICH SEPARATED MUST HE BE PAID INITIALLY AT THE MINIMUM RATE

OF THE GRADE, OR WHERE THE GRADE RANGES OVERLAP AND THE RATE

FIXED ABOVE THE MINIMUM RATE FOR THE GRADE TO WHICH REINSTATED,

MAY HE BE PAID INITIALLY NO MORE THAN THE RATE THAT WOULD HAVE

BEEN SO FIXED; OR

(D) IF REINSTATED TO A POSITION IN A LOWER GRADE MAY HE BE PAID ANY

RATE WITHIN THE RANGE WHICH IS NO HIGHER THAN THE RATE WHICH

WOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED INITIALLY AS OF JULY 1, 1924 FOR THE

POSITION HE FORMERLY OCCUPIED?

DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1924, 3 COMP. GEN. 1004, HELD THAT---

REINSTATEMENT TO EXISTING VACANCIES UNDER CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE NOT "NEW APPOINTMENTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 6 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT. * * *

THIS HAD REFERENCE TO REINSTATEMENTS IN THE SENSE OF BEING RESTORED TO THE POSITION FORMERLY HELD BY THE EMPLOYEE OR ONE SIMILAR THERETO. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, AND ASSUMING THAT A REINSTATEMENT IS NOT A NEW APPOINTMENT, THERE APPEARS NO MATERIAL DISTINCTION, IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT ARE CONCERNED, BETWEEN A NEW APPOINTMENT AND A REINSTATEMENT TO A POSITION SO DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE PREVIOUSLY VACATED BY THE EMPLOYEE AS TO BE ALLOCATED IN ANOTHER GRADE. IN EITHER CASE THE EMPLOYE MUST QUALIFY FOR THE POSITION INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY FORMER SERVICE, AND THE FACT THAT AN EMPLOYEE PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED A POSITION IN ANOTHER GRADE REQUIRING DIFFERENT QUALIFICATIONS, ETC., SHOULD NOT OPERATE TO GIVE THE REINSTATED EMPLOYEE AN ADVANTAGE OVER A NEW APPOINTEE. THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT MADE BY CONGRESS IN THE CLASSIFICATION ACT THAT NEW APPOINTMENTS MUST BE AT THE MINIMUM SALARY RATE OF THE GRADE WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES ALREADY IN THE GRADE. DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 263-4. AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CLASSIFICATION ACT FOR REINSTATEMENTS IN A GRADE OTHER THAN THAT FROM WHICH SEPARATED AT A SALARY ABOVE THE MINIMUM FIXED FOR SAID GRADE, I AM CONSTRAINED TO HOLD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT, THAT A REINSTATEMENT TO A GRADE OTHER THAN THAT FROM WHICH SEPARATED MUST BE AT THE MINIMUM SALARY OF SAID GRADE. THE QUESTION OF PROMOTION OF THE EMPLOYEE AFTER REINSTATEMENT IS ONE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BASED ON COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY WITH OTHERS IN THE GRADE. ACCORDINGLY QUESTIONS (A), (B), (C), (D) ARE ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS: WHERE THE QUESTION OF AVERAGE IS NOT INVOLVED, REINSTATEMENTS IN THE SAME OFFICE TO THE SAME GRADE FROM WHICH AN EMPLOYEE WAS PREVIOUSLY SEPARATED MAY BE AT ANY SALARY RATE OF THE GRADE WHETHER THE SEPARATION WAS PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1, 1924. WITH RESPECT TO SEPARATIONS PRIOR TO JULY 1, THE GRADE TO WHICH THE POSITION HELD BY THE EMPLOYEE WAS ALLOCATED WILL CONTROL. REINSTATEMENTS TO THE SAME GRADE IN ANOTHER OFFICE MAY NOT BE AT A SALARY GREATER THAN THAT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING WHEN THE PRIOR SERVICE CEASED. 3 COMP. GEN. 1004. REINSTATEMENTS TO A DIFFERENT GRADE, WHETHER HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE ONE FROM WHICH SEPARATED, EITHER PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1, 1924, MUST BE AT THE MINIMUM SALARY RATE OF THE GRADE.

11. WHERE THE AVERAGE OF SALARIES IN A GRADE AS FIXED UNDER THE RULES OF SECTION 6 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF JULY 1, 1924, EXCEEDS THE RATE AVERAGE, THE AVERAGE PROVISION DOES NOT REQUIRE REDUCTIONS TO BRING THE SALARY AVERAGE DOWN TO THE RATE AVERAGE. IT IS UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR OPINION OF JUNE 26, 1924, THAT IF THE SALARY AVERAGE WAS BELOW THE RATE AVERAGE ON JULY 1, 1924, AND BY INCREASES IN COMPENSATION THE SALARY AVERAGE SHOULD BE RAISED TO THE RATE AVERAGE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY VACANCIES SHOULD OCCUR IN THE LOWER RATES, THUS BRINGING THE SALARY AVERAGE OF THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REDUCE THEIR SALARIES TO COME WITHIN THE RATE AVERAGE PENDING THE FILLING OF THE VACANCIES. IN SUCH A CASE IF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SHOULD DECIDE TO ABOLISH THE POSITIONS INSTEAD OF FILLING THEM, WOULD IT BE NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE SALARIES OF THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES TO COME WITHIN THE RATE AVERAGE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING SALARIES WHEN FIXED WERE IN ENTIRE CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW?

NO.

12. DOES THE STATEMENT FOUND IN YOUR DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1924, THAT "THE INITIAL SALARIES ON JULY 1, 1924, OF THOSE PERSONS COMING WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN THE AVERAGE PROVISION MAY BE ELIMINATED IN DETERMINING THE AVERAGE" MEAN THAT THE SALARIES OF POSITIONS FOR WHICH A RATE HAS BEEN FIXED BY LAW WHICH IS HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH THEIR POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED MAY BE EXCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE AVERAGE?

THE QUOTATION FROM DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1924, 3 COMP. GEN. 1002, SHOWED THAT EXCESS AVERAGES WOULD EXIST ON JULY 1, 1924, BY REASON OF THE EXCEPTIONS EXPRESSED IN THE "AVERAGE PROVISION.' IN DECISION OF JULY 29, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 127, 129, IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 4, THE PREVIOUS DECISION FROM WHICH YOU QUOTE WAS AMPLIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

* * * BUT ANY NEW ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION IN A GRADE SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1, 1924, MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL PERSONS IN THE GRADE, INCLUDING THOSE EXCEPTED UPON ALLOCATION OF INITIAL SALARIES, IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AVERAGE. * * * (SEE ALSO DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1924.)

13. MAY VACANCIES BE FILLED BY NEW APPOINTMENTS AT THE MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE REMAINS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE?

YES. DECISION OF/JULY 19, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 79, STATED:

CLEARLY IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT ALL APPOINTMENTS IN OR TRANSFERS TO A GRADE MUST CEASE ON AND AFTER JULY 1 IF THE AVERAGE OF THE GRADE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXCEEDED. * * * 14. MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS REASSIGNED TO A POSITION IN THE SAME GRADE IN ANOTHER BUREAU WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT BE PAID INITIALLY THE SAME RATE HE IS RECEIVING, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE IN THE UNIT TO WHICH HE GOES IS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE, OR WOULD BY SUCH ACTION BE BROUGHT ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE---

(A) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS AS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION

ACT ON JULY 1, 1924; OR

(B) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS ABOVE THE RATE AS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT ON JULY 1, 1924?

THIS QUESTION WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF FOLLOWING DEFINITION APPEARING IN YOUR SUBMISSION:

"REASSIGNMENT" MEANS CHANGE OF DUTIES WITHIN THE SAME GRADE OR CLASS, EITHER WITHIN THE SAME BUREAU OR IN A DIFFERENT BUREAU WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT.

THE "AVERAGE PROVISION" APPEARING IN THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATION ACTS SPECIFIES A LARGE UNIT, ,"BUREAU, OFFICE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNIT," AND A SMALL UNIT WITHIN THE LARGE UNIT, VIZ,"GRADE OR CLASS.' THE "GRADE OR CLASS" HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO REFER TO THE GRADES ESTABLISHED BY THE CLASSIFICATION ACT. DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 333. THE CONTROL OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT BY THESE AVERAGE PROVISIONS WAS INTENDED TO BE IN EACH UNIT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY OTHER UNIT, BOTH THE LARGE AND SMALL UNIT THEREIN SPECIFIED. THE DETERMINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SALARY AVERAGES IN GRADES UNDER ONE "BUREAU, OFFICE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNIT" HAS NO REFERENCE WHATEVER TO THE DETERMINATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SALARY AVERAGES IN GRADES UNDER ANOTHER "BUREAU, OFFICE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNIT" WHETHER IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THE DEPARTMENT TO CONTROL THE SALARY AVERAGES IT WOULD HAVE SO PROVIDED. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES REASSIGNED FROM ONE BUREAU, OFFICE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNIT TO ANOTHER BUREAU, OFFICE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNIT IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT MUST BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE GRADE TO WHICH REASSIGNED WITH RESPECT TO THE AVERAGE PROVISION. THE EXCEPTION TO THE AVERAGE PROVISION, BY REASON OF WHICH REDUCTIONS IN THE SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES ARE NOT REQUIRED, IS A ,SAVING CLAUSE" APPLICABLE ONLY SO FAR AS THE POSITIONS IN WHICH ALLOCATED JULY 1, 1924, ARE CONCERNED. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE EMPLOYEE FROM POSITION TO POSITION BETWEEN GRADES, OR IN THE SAME GRADE BETWEEN DIFFERENT BUREAUS, OFFICES, OR OTHER APPROPRIATION UNITS, AFTER JULY 1, 1924. ACCORDINGLY BOTH (A) AND (B) ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

15. MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS PROMOTED TO A HIGHER GRADE IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE GRADE RANGES OVERLAP, BE PAID INITIALLY THE SAME RATE HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING IF THAT RATE IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH PROMOTED, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE OF THE GRADE IS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE---

(A) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS AS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION

ACT ON JULY 1, 1924; OR

(B) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS HIGHER THAN THAT FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE

CLASSIFICATION ACT ON JULY 1, 1924?

(A) AND (B) NO. DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 294. SEE ANSWER TO QUESTION 14 HEREIN.

16. MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS DEMOTED TO A POSITION IN A LOWER GRADE WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE GRADE RANGES OVERLAP, BE PAID INITIALLY AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH DEMOTED WHICH IS NOT HIGHER THAN THE RATE HE IS RECEIVING, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE OF THE GRADE IS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE?

NO. DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 294.

17. MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER TO A POSITION IN THE SAME GRADE BE PAID INITIALLY THE SAME RATE HE HAS BEEN RECEIVING, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE IN THE UNIT TO WHICH TRANSFERRED MAY EXCEED THE RATE AVERAGE---

(A) IF HIS PRESENT SALARY IS AS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE

CLASSIFICATION ACT ON JULY 1, 1924; OR

(B) IF HIS PRESENT SALARY IS HIGHER THAN AS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER

THE CLASSIFICATION ACT ON JULY 1, 1924?

(A) AND (B) NO. 4 COMP. GEN. 79, AND LAST SENTENCE OF ANSWER TO QUESTION 14 HEREIN.

18. MAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER AND PROMOTED TO A POSITION IN A HIGHER GRADE WHERE THE RANGES FOR THE GRADES OVERLAP BE PAID INITIALLY THE SAME RATE HE IS RECEIVING, IF THAT RATE IS HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM RATE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH PROMOTED, EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY AVERAGE IN THE UNIT TO WHICH TRANSFERRED IS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE---

(A) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION

ACT ON JULY 1, 1924; OR

(B) IF HIS PRESENT RATE IS HIGHER THAN THAT FIXED INITIALLY UNDER THE

CLASSIFICATION ACT ON JULY 1, 1924?

(A) AND (B) NO. SEE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 294, AND ANSWER TO QUESTION 14 HEREIN.

19. WHEN A VACANCY IS FILLED BY REINSTATEMENT MAY THE EMPLOYEE BE PAID INITIALLY AT OTHER THAN THE MINIMUM RATE FOR THE GRADE IF THE SALARY AVERAGE OF THE UNIT TO WHICH REINSTATED IS ABOVE THE RATE AVERAGE?

NO. 4 COMP. GEN. 79.

20. UNDER WHAT PAY CONDITIONS MAY AN EMPLOYEE BE REASSIGNED WITHIN THE SAME DEPARTMENT FROM A GRADE IN ANOTHER SERVICE HAVING THE SAME PAY RANGE?

THE TERM "SERVICE" IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT AS "THE BROADEST DIVISION OF RELATED OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS," AND FIVE SERVICES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT, VIZ, PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC, SUBPROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL, CUSTODIAL AND CLERICAL-MECHANICAL. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EDUCATION, QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, ETC., NECESSARY FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THESE SERVICES IS SO GREAT THAT IT IS NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD HOW THERE COULD BE REASSIGNMENTS BETWEEN THE SERVICES WITHOUT CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION OR AN EQUIVALENT TEST TO SHOW THE EMPLOYEE'S FITNESS. IT WOULD APPEAR THEREFORE THAT REASSIGNMENTS BETWEEN SERVICES WOULD IN FACT BE NEW APPOINTMENTS REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF THE MINIMUM SALARY RATE OF THE GRADE TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEES ARE "REASSIGNED.' IN THIS CONNECTION SEE ANSWER TO QUESTION 10.

YOU ALSO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF DECISION OF JUNE 26, 1924, 3 COMP. GEN. 1006:

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE POSITIONS OF THE FIELD SERVICE HAVE NOT BEEN CLASSIFIED AS PROVIDED BY LAW, I AM CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT UNDER A TRANSFER FROM AN UNCLASSIFIED POSITION IN THE FIELD SERVICE TO A CLASSIFIED POSITION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ASSUMING THAT SUCH TRANSFER IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID WOULD BE THE MINIMUM COMPENSATION OF THE GRADE TO WHICH TRANSFERRED, AS CONSTITUTING IN EFFECT A NEW APPOINTMENT.

THIS QUESTION WAS RECONSIDERED AND AFFIRMED IN DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1924, ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, 4 COMP. GEN. 263.