5 C.F.R. § 351.202

Coverage

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Employees covered. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to each civilian employee in:

(1) The executive branch of the Federal Government; and

(2) Those parts of the Federal Government outside the executive branch which are subject by statute to competitive service requirements or are determined by the appropriate legislative or judicial administrative body to be covered hereunder. Coverage includes administrative law judges except as modified by part 930 of this chapter.

(b) Employees excluded. This part does not apply to an employee:

(1) In a position in the Senior Executive Service; or

(2) Whose appointment is required by Congress to be confirmed by, or made with the advice and consent of, the United States Senate, except a postmaster.

(1) The termination of a temporary or term promotion or the return of an employee to the position held before the temporary or term promotion or to one of equivalent grade and pay.

(2) A change to lower grade based on the reclassification of an employee's position due to the application of new classification standards or the correction of a classification error.

(3) A change to lower grade based on reclassification of an employee's position due to erosion of duties, except that this exclusion does not apply to such reclassification actions that will take effect after an agency has formally announced a reduction in force in the employee's competitive area and when the reduction in force will take effect within 180 days. This exception ends at the completion of the reduction in force.

(4) The change of an employee from regular to substitute in the same pay level in the U.S. Postal Service field service.

(5) The release from a competitive level of a National Guard technician under section 709 of title 32, United States Code.

(6) Placement of an employee serving on an intermittent, part-time, on-call, or seasonal basis in a nonpay and nonduty status in accordance with conditions established at time of appointment.

(7) A change in an employee's work schedule from other-than-full-time to full-time. (A change from full-time to other than full-time for a reason covered in § 351.201(A)(2) is covered by this part.)

[51 FR 319, Jan. 3, 1986, as amended at 60 FR 3062, Jan. 13, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: William B. Schmidt v. Dep't of Interior, 153 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

William B. Schmidt v. Dep't of Interior, 153 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 5 C.F.R. § 351.202 (b) (“This part [Part 351] does not apply to an employee: .”

U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 913 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “§ 1104 (b)(1), generally apply to most civilian employees of the federal government, see 5 C.F.R. § 351.202 , and are recognized by the Authority as government-wide regulations within the meaning of 5 U.”

United States Dep't of Com., Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., Nat'l Weather Serv., Silver Spring v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 7 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “5 C.F.R. § 351.202 . Within a competitive area, agencies establish “competitive levels” for employees that consist of groups of positions that are roughly equivalent “in duties, qualification requirements, pay schedules, and working conditions.”

James L. Worthington v. Dep't of Agric., 865 F.2d 268 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “Petitioner relies upon the October 16, 1985, Audit of his position and the resultant Position Description Correction Notice dated November 10, 1985, to show that his downgrade was due to a shortage of funds or a reorganization.”

Kevin Wheeler Bell v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “§ 3501 (b); 5 C.F.R. §§ 351.202 (a)(2), 351.901. ¶7 A veteran who has served on active duty in the armed forces during statutorily specified time periods and was discharged under honorable conditions is preference eligible.”

— 5 C.F.R. § 351.202(c)(2) — 1 case

James L. Worthington v. Dep't of Agric., 865 F.2d 268 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “Petitioner relies upon the October 16, 1985, Audit of his position and the resultant Position Description Correction Notice dated November 10, 1985, to show that his downgrade was due to a shortage of funds or a reorganization.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.