5 C.F.R. § 351.705

Administrative assignment

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

(a) An agency may, at its discretion, adopt provisions which:

(1) Permit a competing employee to displace an employee with lower retention standing in the same subgroup consistent with § 351.701 when the agency cannot make an equally reasonable assignment by displacing an employee in a lower subgroup;

(2) Permit an employee in subgroup III-AD to displace an employee in subgroup III-A or III-B, or permit an employee in subgroup III-A to displace an employee is subgroup III-B consistent with § 351.701; or

(3) Provide competing employees in the excepted service with assignment rights to other positions under the same appointing authority on the same basis as assignment rights provided to competitive service employees under § 351.701 and in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section.

(b) Provisions adopted by an agency under paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) Shall be consistent with this part;

(2) Shall be uniformly and consistently applied in any one reduction in force;

(3) May not provide for the assignment of an other-than-full-time employee to a full-time position;

(4) May not provide for the assignment of a full-time employee to an other-than-full-time position;

(5) May not provide for the assignment of an employee in a competitive service position to a position in the excepted service; and

(6) May not provide for the assignment of an employee in an excepted position to a position in the competitive service.

[51 FR 319, Jan. 3, 1986, as amended at 62 FR 62502, Nov. 24, 1997]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., Nat'l Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor, 895 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., Nat'l Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor, 895 F.2d 152 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 5× “]” 5 C.F.R. § 351.705 (b)(2). 10 The Union’s proposals would provide excepted service employees with the same bump and retreat rights as competitive service employees.”

Raymond E. Dodd v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 770 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “5 C.F.R. § 351.705 (a), however, states “an agency may, in its discretion, adopt provisions____” (Emphasis added.”

Brunton v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. Ohio 1981). “5 C.F.R. § 351.705 (b)(5). Within the excepted service, an employee has no right to assignment when the agency cannot retain him in his competitive level.”

U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 913 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “201(c) (“Each agency is responsible for assuring that the provisions in this part are uniformly and consistently applied in any one reduction in force.”

Broad. Bd. of Governors Off. of Cuba Broad. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 752 F.3d 453 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “This requirement, the Board argues, forces it to violate a government-wide Office of Personnel Management regulation barring agencies from “assign[ing] an employee in an excepted position to a position in the competitive service,” 5 C.F.R. § 351.705 (b)(6), even though the…”

Beverly Hayes v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “See also 5 C.F.R. § 351.705 (where agency makes discretionary reassignments, rules for such reassignments “shall be uniformly and consistently applied in any one reduction in force”).”

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.