B-171064, NOV. 9, 1970

B-171064, NOV. 9, 1970

COMPENSATION - INCREASES - ADJUSTMENT THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION RULES FOR GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES AND POSTAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PROMOTED IN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A SALARY INCREASE ACT RESULTS FROM OPERATION OF TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS RATHER THAN ANY INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN TWO CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES. SEE LETTER TO CLAIMANT OF AUGUST 14, 1970.

TO MR. DARRELL D. DUNN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1970, REQUESTING INFORMATION REGARDING THE FEDERAL SALARY ACT OF 1967, APPROVED DECEMBER 16, 1967, PUBLIC LAW 90-206, 81 STAT. 613.

YOU QUOTE SUBSECTIONS 205(E)(3) AND 205(G)(1) OF THE CITED ACT WHICH RELATE TO THE FIXING OF THE BASIC COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE POSTAL FIELD SERVICE SCHEDULE OR THE RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE. EACH SUBSECTION PROVIDES THAT IF CHANGES IN LEVELS OR STEPS WOULD OTHERWISE OCCUR ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A PAY INCREASE IN 1967 OR 1968 UNDER THE ACT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR TO CONVERSION. YOU ALSO REFER TO OUR LETTER TO YOU DATED AUGUST 14, 1970, REGARDING THE SALARY ADJUSTMENT OF A GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEE ON JULY 13, 1968, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1968 GENERAL SALARY INCREASES UNDER THE ACT. IN OUR LETTER WE STATED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11413, JUNE 11, 1968, PROMULGATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 212 OF PUBLIC LAW 90-206, A SALARY ADJUSTMENT SPECIFIED IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MUST BE MADE BEFORE A SALARY ADJUSTMENT RESULTING FROM A PROMOTION IS MADE.

IN THE LIGHT OF OUR LETTER TO YOU AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CITED YOU ASK: "WAS IT THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE CONGRESS THAT THE RATE OF BASIC COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE GENERAL SCHEDULE, WHO RECEIVED A PROMOTION ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1967 1968 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY INCREASE ACT, BE REDUCED BY REASON OF THE ENACTMENT OF THAT ACT; AND THAT CERTAIN FEDERAL POSTAL EMPLOYEES WHO ALSO RECEIVED A PROMOTION ON THAT SAME EFFECTIVE DATE SHOULD NOT SUFFER A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN THEIR RATE OF BASIC COMPENSATION?"

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CITED BY YOU INDICATES THAT THEY ARE MERELY RULES OF CONVERSION AND THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN POSTAL AND GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE NO ACCESS TO THE HISTORY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND HAVE NO BASIS FOR FORMING AN OPINION AS TO THE EXECUTIVE INTENT. WE POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE WORDING IS SIMILAR TO THAT CONTAINED IN PREVIOUS PAY INCREASE BILLS. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION 102(B)(1) OF PUBLIC LAW 89-504, APPROVED JULY 18, 1966, 80 STAT. 288. NOTE THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN GRADE GS-9, STEP 5, WHO WAS PROMOTED TO GS-11 ON JULY 13, 1968, WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE SALARY FOR STEP 2 INSTEAD OF STEP 1, GRADE GS-11, IF HIS PAY ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO POSTAL EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF THOSE RELATING TO GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES. HOWEVER, THIS APPEARS TO RESULT FROM THE OPERATION OF SALARY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO TWO DIFFERENT PAY SYSTEMS RATHER THAN AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES.

YOU ALSO REQUEST INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THAT PORTION OF SECTION 212 OF PUBLIC LAW 90-206 WHICH READS: "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL IMPAIR ANY AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO WHICH RATES OF PAY MAY BE FIXED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION." THIS RELATES TO THE AUTHORITY OF SUCH AGENCIES AS THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO FIX SALARIES WITHOUT REGARD TO GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY RATES (5 U.S.C. 5331(B); ID. 5102(A)) AND, THEREFORE, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE SALARIES OF GENERAL SCHEDULE EMPLOYEES. SINCE PAY SAVINGS PROVISIONS RELATE ONLY TO THE RETENTION OF PAY BY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE DEMOTED, THEY HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE PAY OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS PROMOTED ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1968 GENERAL PAY INCREASE.