Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Ralph Smith

No Back Pay, No Employment Contract, No Promotion

By Ralph Smith

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

If you are a civil service employee, you have an appointment and not a contract to perform a job.

This isn’t our opinion. It is the opinion of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue arose when an employee said the government owed him more money because he served in an acting capacity in a higher level job at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts.

In this case, the federal employee, Stanton Collier, said that he served as the chief of his branch after his supervisor retired. The chief of the division was a GS-15. Collier was a GS-14 and was paid at that lower rate—even when performing the duties of his supervisor. When Collier was not selected for the supervisory job, despite having acted in the position, he filed a grievance arguing that the government owed him back pay for the 24 months he served in the higher graded job.

Collier argued that his performance plan required him to serve as the chief of the division in the absence of the supervisor. This requirement, he said, was a contract that the government had not lived up to when it paid him at the lGS-14 level.

The court said that as a civil service employee, he did not have a contract with the government and that a performance plan did not create such a contract. Instead, as a federal employee, he had an appointment to his position.

The court also said that the Back Pay Act did not apply to a federal employee who is working at a higher grade level. The Back Pay Act applies to an employee found to "have been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or part of the pay, allowances, or differentials of the employee . . . ." Acting in a higher graded position does not fall within this definition of back pay concluded the court.

The bottom line: the employee is out of luck and does not get the higher rate of pay for the time he was the acting supervisor of the division.

You can download Collier v. U.S. from the link on the left hand side of this page.

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • To get covered by the back pay act, I claimed that the failure to temporarily appointment me to the GS-15 was an unjustified act that resulted in the loss of pay. The court did not buy this, of course, and fell back on its standard statements about appointments, etc. My supervisor at the time was...
    Posted: March 12, 2005 8:55 AM
  • I disagree with the court findings in this case of NO BACK PAY, the way I interpete the law is to read that if the employee is qualified for the postion in which they are acting they should be paid or compensated for the job preformed. The governement takes advantage of governement employees and do...
    Posted: November 5, 2004 2:52 PM
  • I am filling the billet of the locksmith for all mccs buildings. My grade is NA10. I do not have a PD. I have not had a PD for over 2 Years. The Union is a JOKE! We could all work elseware, but with 26 years in we can only hope/cope with what we have. It is better than unemployment?...
    Posted: September 2, 2004 11:50 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY RALPH SMITH

Contact Ralph Smith or read more articles on the author's page.