JOAN, ETHEL, FEDSMILL AND TEMPORARY PROMOTION BACK PAY

Almost 18 months ago, on July 29, 2022, we spelled out why OPM was wrong to prohibit paying  employees detailed or otherwise assigned to higher graded work for more than 120 days a year. In fact, we suggested it bordered on wage theft. In that July post we also virtually begged unions to get behind our argument and after a few days of no action some did. We know that our post was also passed around at OPM as soon as it came out. Well, as we predicted, OPM had no choice but to change its regulations once the arguments we outlined were officially put forth by unions. A Gov Exec article explains the looming changes, but the bottom line is employees may be entitled to big chunks of back pay if they act now. For example, …

assume that an employee, let’s call her Joan, contacts the union rep to complain that when a co-worker retired last year her supervisor dumped half of the retiree’s assignment on her and the other half on Joan’s colleague Ethel. Joan is upset because looking back over the last 6 months she can see that she has spent about half her time on the retiree’s work which is higher-graded work. Joan explains that while she is a GS-7, the retiree was a GS-8.

Before OPM smartened up on this issue of how far back retroactive compensation could cover, all the union could have done for Joan and Ethel was get them 120 days pay at the GS-8 level, but now the union can get them paid for all their time back to when the supervisor started (knowingly or unknowingly) giving them work that was above their grade. (There are some exceptions, e.g., the employee generally must meet thee formal qualifications to hold the higher graded position.)

So, if unions have grievances like that in process now, they should make it clear that they want to be paid for the entire period the employee was doing higher graded work, not just 120 days. If they have settled grievances for just 120 days of back pay based on the OPM/FLRA 120 day, they should consult with union staff to see if they have a case for getting that grievant paid for a longer period. If they have an Ethel in their midst who has not done a thing to get paid—and she is a member, they should explain the facts of worklife to her