B-146059, OCT. 30, 1961
Highlights
YOU WERE PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE. IN 1955 YOU REQUESTED THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REEVALUATE YOUR POSITION BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT THE POSITION WAS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER GRADE. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CLASSIFICATION OFFICERS AS TO THE CORRECT GRADE. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR DETERMINATION. NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION(FORM DJ-50) SHOWING THE PROMOTION FROM GS-6 TO GS-7 WAS ISSUED JUNE 23. YOU CONTEND THAT THE CHANGE IN GRADE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES REQUIRED OF THE POSITION BUT YOU SAY IN EFFECT THAT SUCH ACTION WAS TAKEN IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION WAS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNT YOUR SERVICES IN BOTH GRADES TOWARD THE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR A LONGEVITY STEP-INCREASE.
B-146059, OCT. 30, 1961
TO MRS. MARGARET R. DONLAN:
ON OCTOBER 6, 1961, THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 16, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR A LONGEVITY STEP-INCREASE INCIDENT TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 2, 1945, YOU WERE PROMOTED TO THE POSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE, RECORDS BRANCH, GS-6. IN 1955 YOU REQUESTED THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REEVALUATE YOUR POSITION BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT THE POSITION WAS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER GRADE. APPARENTLY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CLASSIFICATION OFFICERS AS TO THE CORRECT GRADE; THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOR DETERMINATION. A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION'S STAFF AUDITED THE POSITION AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED ALLOCATION OF THE POSITION TO GS-7. NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION(FORM DJ-50) SHOWING THE PROMOTION FROM GS-6 TO GS-7 WAS ISSUED JUNE 23, 1955, EFFECTIVE JULY 3, 1955.
YOU CONTEND THAT THE CHANGE IN GRADE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES REQUIRED OF THE POSITION BUT YOU SAY IN EFFECT THAT SUCH ACTION WAS TAKEN IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION WAS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNT YOUR SERVICES IN BOTH GRADES TOWARD THE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR A LONGEVITY STEP-INCREASE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DETERMINED THAT A DIFFERENT POSITION HAD BEEN CREATED THROUGH GRADUAL ASSUMPTION AND DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO PERFORM THE WORK WITH LESS SUPERVISION AND THAT THE ALLOCATION OF THE POSITION TO GS-7 RESULTED FROM THE INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES. YOU WERE SO ADVISED BY THAT AGENCY BY MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 31, 1960. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE POSITION CHANGED GRADUALLY OVER SOME EXTENDED PERIOD LEADING UP TO MAY 1955 AND THAT THE ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION WAS NOT IN ERROR.
THE HEAD OF AN AGENCY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO EMPLOYEES AND SUBJECT TO THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, AND CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS, TO CLASSIFY POSITIONS. SEE FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL, AT PAGE P2-7. INHERENT IN THAT AUTHORITY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE CHANGED OR REMAINED CONSTANT. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DECISION WHETHER THE RECLASSIFIED POSITION IS THE SAME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT SHOULD BE MADE BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. IN YOUR CASE BOTH AGENCIES HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION AND THE RECLASSIFICATION IN 1955. THAT DETERMINATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR REVISION BY OUR OFFICE. IN VIEW THEREOF, OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 16, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.