When determining the order of retention in a reduction in force under this part, an agency must classify competing employees on the appropriate retention register on the basis of four factors (tenure of employment, performance, veterans' preference, and length of service) as follows:
(a) By tenure group, with the competitive service tenure group and the excepted service tenure group listed on separate retention registers;
(b) Within each tenure group, by performance credit in descending order as determined in § 351.503, as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504;
(c) When two or more competing employees have the same performance credit, as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504, the competing employees are further ranked in descending order by tenure subgroups (as described in § 351.502), with tenure subgroup I listed ahead of tenure subgroup II, and then by years of service beginning with the earliest service computation date, as computed under § 351.505.
Notes of Decisions
Kay Coles James Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Elisabeth Von Zemenszky, 284 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“§ 3502 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 . In contrast, VHA “staff adjustment” procedures provide for much broader management discretion by permitting each local facility to develop its own placement criteria in choosing which employees to retain, reassign, or release in a staff…”
Larry D. Starkey v. Dep't of the Navy, 198 F.3d 851 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
· cites it 3× “The applicable regulation is 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 (d)(2) (1999), which states in relevant part: § 351.”
Smith v. Swick & Shapiro, P.C., 75 A.3d 898 (D.C. 2013).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 351.501 (a). There are three tenure groups — group I, group II, and group III.”
Raymond E. Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 770 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “501(b); (2) the new position to which he claims entitlement is in his competitive area, the Hartsville Nuclear Plant Branch; and (3) as a preference eligible employee he is in a higher subgroup than Loope, a nonpreference eligible employee, see 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 (f) and (g). 5…”
Daniel R. Krizman v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 77 F.3d 434 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
“§ 3501 (b); 5 C.F.R. §§ 351.501 , 351.901. Krizman, a veteran, was a preference-eligible employee and thus was entitled to the rights conferred by the OPM reduction-in-force regulations upon being subjected to a RIF action.”
William J. Thurman v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 533 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The Commission found that Thurman was properly classified in Retention Group III-B under the regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 . 3 Further, the Commission found that Thurman had the lowest tenure in Retention Group III-B, and thus was within reach for release from his position.”
Mary Lou Starling v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 757 F.2d 271 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Even though she was in tenure group IIB, 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 (c), (g) (1982), the agency determined that there were no available positions into which Dr.”
U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 913 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
“§ 3502 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 351.501 . These same retention factors indirectly govern the exercise of secondary bump and retreat privileges within a competitive area for employees released from their competitive levels in the first round of a reduction in force.”
5 C.F.R. § 351.501(a): 1 case
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.