Washington, DC

U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Job Grading Appeal Decision
Under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code

---

Robert D. Hendler
Classification and Pay Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance


07/17/2014

---

Date

As provided in section S7-8 of the Operating Manual:  Federal Wage System, this decision constitutes a certificate that is mandatory and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Government.  There is no right of further appeal.  This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified, in 532.705(f) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (address provided in the Introduction to the Position Classification Standards, appendix 4, section H).

Introduction

On January 6, 2014, OPM’s Agency Compliance and Evaluation-Philadelphia accepted a job grading appeal from Mr. Joseph G. Sinagra.  The appellant’s job is currently graded as a Marine Machinery Mechanic Leader, WL-5334-10, and is located in the Industrial Production Facility (IPF) Boston, Naval Engineering Support Unit (NESU), Industrial Operations Division (IOD), Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in Boston, Massachusetts.  The appellant believes his job should be graded at Marine Machinery Mechanic Leader, WL-5334-11.  We received the complete agency administrative report on April 21, 2014, and have accepted and decided this appeal under section 5346 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.).

By law, we must make that decision solely by comparing the appellant's current duties and responsibilities to OPM standards and guidelines (5 U.S.C. 5103 and 5346 (a)).  In reaching our job grading decision, we have carefully reviewed all of the information provided by the appellant and his agency, including the appellant’s job description (JD) of record.  In addition, we conducted telephone interviews with the appellant on May 7 and 12, 2014, and with his first-level supervisor on May 14, 2014.  We find the JD contains the major duties and responsibilities assigned by management and performed by the appellant and we hereby incorporate it by reference into this decision.  However, the appellant’s JD includes statements that he exercises all leader responsibilities for the machinist job, which we find to be inaccurate and explain later in this decision, and the agency should revise the JD accordingly.

Job information

The Industrial Production Facility Boston is authorized by the SFLC IOD to provide maintenance assistance to all cutters and boats as directed by the IOD.  The facility maintenance teams provide hull, mechanical and electrical, and ordnance maintenance as authorized.

The appellant leads a current staff of five Marine Machinery Mechanics grade 10, one Marine Machinery Repairer grade 8, and one Machinist grade 11 in the repair, overhaul, and manufacture of all types of marine machinery, equipment, and systems aboard USCG vessels.  The appellant and his team members tear down, adjust, repair, modify, maintain, test, load, and/or overhaul diesel engines and related major propulsion system components, such as hydraulic marine transmissions, manual marine transmissions, winches, propellers, propulsion shafts, and bearings.

He is responsible for accomplishing the work with his team members and assuring final products are completed on time, and meet established standards of quality and quantity.  Within this context, he is expected to assign the immediate tasks to be performed by the team assigned to the project, work with the team, set the pace, and ensure required resources, such as materials and blueprints, are available, and discuss work problems with the supervisor as they arise.

The appellant’s shop receives its work through Industrial Service Work Orders (ISO) and Casualty Reports (CASREPs).  USCG planners and estimators with IOD’s SFLC in Baltimore, Maryland, develop ISOs for the overhaul of USCG vessels, which make up most of the shop's work.  For example, an ISO to overhaul a boat can contain 120 separate individual tasks which need to be carried out and include information such as which components need to be inspected or repaired, part measurements, and required tolerances.  CASREPs initiate emergency repairs to a USCG vessel which has experienced an unexpected breakdown.

When IPF Boston receives an ISO, the supervisors of the appropriate shop leaders distribute the tasks.  The appellant reviews the work order references, such as repair manuals, blueprints, and safety standards, to determine the needed repairs before making work assignments to his team members.  Typically, three overhaul projects are in various stages of completion at any time.  If a worker receives a marine machinery type of work not previously done, the appellant will explain how the job should be done and demonstrate the proper procedures.

Once a component is broken down and the appellant measures the parts, the appellant compares the measurements against the technical manual and/or blueprints to determine whether parts should be fabricated in the shop or if it is more cost effective to purchase them.  The appellant brings the parts needing fabrication to the Machinist along with the specifications to make the part and decides which machine to use – the manual or Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) milling or lathe machine.  For example, the anodes on the propellers of an 87’ Coast Guard patrol boat were found to be improperly configured to fit on the boat.  Because there were discrepancies between the blueprints and the drawings, the appellant assisted the Machinist by taking the anodes’ measurements.  He also decided that the Machinist would use the manual milling machine to configure the first anode and the CNC milling machine to configure the second so the program could be used in the future.

If the Machinist is not in the shop and a project needs to move forward due to time constraints, the appellant will continue the work on the machine already set up by the Machinist.  However, no matter which type of machine is used, either manual or CNC, the appellant operates it in manual mode.

Occupation, title, and standard determination

The agency has allocated the appellant’s job as Marine Machinery Mechanic Leader, WL-5334, with which the appellant has not disagreed and, based on careful review of the record, we concur. 

The appellant’s leader duties are properly evaluated by application of the Job Grading Standard (JGS) for Work Leader WL/NL.  The record shows the agency evaluated the appellant’s personally performed 5334 marine machinery mechanic work at the grade 10 and the machinist work at the grade 9 grade levels.  Because the appellant does not disagree and we concur, we will not address this work further.  Therefore, our evaluation focuses on the appellant’s leader work because he disputes his agency’s determination of the highest level of work he leads, which is used to determine the grade of his leader work.

Grade determination

Evaluation using the JGS for Leader

The JGS for Leader functions as a pay setting instrument intended to establish the proper pay relationship between the leader demands of the WL job and the work force led.  The JGS defines leader coverage criteria.  If a job meets the Leader coverage criteria, the next step in the grading process is to determine the level of nonsupervisory work led as defined in the JGS. 

Coverage

The JGS is used to grade jobs of leaders who, as a regular and recurring part of their jobs, on a substantially full time and continuing basis, lead three or more workers in (a) accomplishing trades and labor work or (b) training them in the nonsupervisory work of a trade and laboring occupation; i.e., Working Leaders and Training Leaders.  To be credited, a level in the JGS must be met fully.

Part 1 of the JGS covers working leaders.  Working leaders must have the ability to lead three or more other workers to accomplish trades and labor work, including as a paramount requirement, sufficient skill in and knowledge of the trades and labor work performed by the group led to effectively carry out the duties of working leaders outlined below.  Working leaders also perform regular nonsupervisory (i.e., non-leader) work that is usually of the same kind and level as that done by the group led.

Thus, working leaders in positions covered by this JGS are nonsupervisory workers who, in addition to the exercise of leader responsibility, perform regular nonsupervisory (i.e., non-leader) trades and labor work as members of the work crews or groups they lead.  Typically, working leader tasks are performed by leaders at various times throughout the work day (or work shift) as needed or as otherwise appropriate.  Thus, the working “leader” tasks are mingled with the accomplishment of other regular nonsupervisory (non-leader) work.  The amount of time spent by working leaders in accomplishing leader tasks, as distinct from regular nonsupervisory work, varies with work situations and operating needs.

The appellant states in his rationale that he disagrees with his agency’s application of the JGS for Federal Wage System (FWS) Leaders because one of the employee’s his leads occupies a grade 11 Machinist position which should be used in grading his job.

We find the appellant’s duties compare favorably with the working leader coverage criteria.  Typical working leader duties are:  (1) passing on to other workers the instructions received from supervisors and getting work started; e.g., by assigning the immediate tasks to be performed by individual members of the group led; (2) working along with other workers and setting the pace; (3) demonstrating proper work methods; (4) seeing to it that needed plans, blueprints, materials, and tools are available, and that needed stock is obtained from supply locations; (5) obtaining needed information or decisions from supervisors on problems that come up during the work; (6) maintaining a current knowledge, and answering questions of other workers on procedures, policies, written instructions, and other directives (for example, technical orders); (7) seeing to it that there is enough work to keep everyone in the work crew busy; (8) checking work while in progress and when finished to see whether the supervisor’s instructions on work sequence, procedures, methods, and deadlines have been met; (9) urging or advising other workers to follow instructions received from supervisors and to meet deadlines; (10) assuring that safety and housekeeping rules are followed (for example, assuring that limits of safe machine operation are not exceeded and that all tools are used properly); (11) reporting to supervisors on status and progress of work and causes of work delays; and (12) answering questions of supervisors on overall work operations and problems (for example, concerning additional on-the-job training requirements for individual employees).

Highest Level of Nonsupervisory Work Led

In applying the grading table to working leaders’ jobs, the grade to be used usually is the grade of the highest-level nonsupervisory employee in the group led, not including the leader.  However, the JGS cautions that care should be taken to assure this grade actually reflects the level of nonsupervisory work led.  One condition cited as meeting this caveat is where the highest-level employee may do work in an occupation in which the working leader is not fully qualified.  The level of such work should be used to grade the working leader job only where the leader, although not fully qualified, has enough knowledge of the occupation to lead the work involved; e.g., pass on instructions from the supervisor, assign immediate tasks to be performed, demonstrate work methods, check work, and report to the supervisor on work status or cause of work delays.

The appellant states that although not fully qualified, he has enough knowledge of the 3414 occupation to lead the work involved; e.g., pass on instructions from the supervisor, assign immediate tasks to be performed, demonstrate work methods, check work, and report to the supervisor on work status or cause of work delays.  He states the Machinist’s newly acquired skill (using a CNC machine) does not change how he interacts with the Machinist.

The record shows the Machinist's main function is to program the CNC machines to repetitively fabricate parts in support of USCG vessel overhauls.  As the appellant has received no formal training in how to develop and program CNC machines, he cannot demonstrate work methods or check the work of the Machinist by showing him how to write or improve CNC programs.  Therefore, the grade 11 Machinist work may not be used as the highest-level grade led by the appellant. 

As previously discussed, five of the seven employees led by the appellant perform 5334 Marine Machinery Mechanic grade 10 work.  In using the Working Leader Grading Table, the grade 10 appropriately represents the highest grade led by the appellant, which results in the crediting of WL-10 for the appellant’s leader work.

Summary

We find the appellant’s working leader duties are properly evaluated at the WL-10 level, his nonsupervisory Marine Machinery Mechanic duties at the WG-10 level, and his nonsupervisory Machinist duties at the WG-9 level.  Since the WL-10 results in the highest pay rate for the appellant, we find the appellant’s job is properly graded as Marine Machinery Mechanic Leader, WL-5334-10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top