Washington, DC
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Fair Labor Standards Act Decision
Under section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code
Federal Protective Service
Department of Homeland Security
Atlanta, Georgia
Linda Kazinetz
Classification and FLSA Claims
Program Manager
Agency Compliance and Evaluation
Merit System Accountability and Compliance
08/30/2017
Date
As provided in section 551.708 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this decision is binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing and accounting officials of agencies for which the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). There is no right of further administrative appeal. This decision is subject to discretionary review only under conditions and time limits specified in 5 CFR 551.708 (address provided in section 551.710). The claimant has the right to bring action in the appropriate Federal court if dissatisfied with the decision.
Introduction
The claimant is a current employee of the Federal Protective Service, Department of Homeland Security, in Atlanta, Georgia. The claimant is seeking to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for commuting, travel, and standby time, “unpaid law enforcement wages,” unpaid administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO),[1] and liquidated damages. We received the claim on August 9, 2017.
We have accepted and decided this claim under section 4(f) of the FLSA, as amended, codified at section 204(f) of title 29, United States Code (U.S.C.).
Jurisdiction
OPM settles Federal civilian employee FLSA claims under the provisions of section 204(f) of title 29 U.S.C., and 5 CFR part 551, subpart G. Information provided to OPM (i.e., Standard Form 50 (SF-50) showing the FLSA exemption status in block 35) shows that the claimant is designated as nonexempt from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA, which means the FLSA applies to his position.
Section 7121(a)(1) of 5 U.S.C. directs that except as provided elsewhere in the statute, the grievance procedures in a negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) shall be the exclusive administrative remedy for resolving matters that fall within the coverage of the CBA. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found the plain language of 5 U.S.C. 7121(a)(1) to be clear, and as such, limits the administrative resolution of a Federal employee’s grievance to the negotiated procedures set forth in the CBA. Mudge v. United States, 308 F.3d 1220, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Further, the Federal Circuit also found that all matters not specifically excluded from the grievance process by the CBA fall within the coverage of the CBA. Id. at 1231. As such, OPM cannot assert jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of Federal employees who are or were subject to a negotiated grievance procedure (NGP) under a CBA between the employee’s agency and labor union for any time during the claim period, unless the matter is or was specifically excluded from the CBA’s NGP. See 5 CFR 178.101(b) and 5 CFR 551.703(a).
Documentation provided to OPM shows the claimant occupies a bargaining unit position (SF-50 block 37). The Master Agreement between National Protection and Programs Directorate and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 918, covering the claimant during the period of the claim, does not specifically exclude FLSA issues from the NGP (Article 40). Therefore, this claim must be construed as covered by the NGP the claimant was subject to during the claim period, and OPM has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim.
Decision
The claim is denied based on lack of jurisdiction.
[1] It is unclear whether the claimant is requesting that he receive AUO or that he be subject to the “special FLSA overtime rules” for employees receiving AUO.