U.S. Code
»
Title 5
» Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart B— Employment and Retention › Chapter CHAPTER 35— RETENTION PREFERENCE, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— RETENTION PREFERENCE
5 U.S.C. § 3503
Transfer of functions
(a) When a function is transferred from one agency to another, each competing employee in the function shall be transferred to the receiving agency for employment in a position for which he is qualified before the receiving agency may make an appointment from another source to that position.(b) When one agency is replaced by another, each competing employee in the agency to be replaced shall be transferred to the replacing agency for employment in a position for which he is qualified before the replacing agency may make an appointment from another source to that position.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 95–454, title III, § 307(f), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1149; Pub. L. 96–54, § 2(a)(18), Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 382.)In subsection (a), the words “a function” are substituted for “any or all of the functions”. The word “receiving” is substituted for “replacing” in the phrase “receiving agency” to avoid confusion with subsection (b).
In subsections (a) and (b), the word “first” in the phrase “shall first be transferred” is omitted as redundant in view of the subsequent limitation imposed by the words following “before”. The words “make an appointment from another source to that position” are substituted for “appoint additional employees from any other source for such position”.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Editorial NotesAmendments1979—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 96–54 substituted “competing employee” for “preference eligible employed”.
1978—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 95–454 which directed the substitution of “competing employee” for “preference eligible employee” was impossible to execute literally because the text contained reference to “preference eligible employed”. See 1979 Amendment note above.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1979 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 96–54 effective July 12, 1979, see section 2(b) of Pub. L. 96–54, set out as a note under section 305 of this title.
Effective Date of 1978 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Elias Covington v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
· cites it 3× “On September 12, 1981 the CSA union filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that CSA employees had rights under the Veterans Preference Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3503 , 1 to be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)…”
Certain Former Csa Employees v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The union contended that all the functions of the old agency would be transferred to the new agency and that under the statute governing the rights of employees of an agency, functions of which were transferred to another agency, 5 U.S.C. § 3503 (discussed infra, p. 982), the…”
Beverly Hayes v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 829 F.2d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
· cites it 3× “All of the petitioners claim that they are entitled to positions in the new agency's block grant function, on the theory that the Community Services Administration was “replaced” by the new agency under 5 U.S.C. § 3503 (b) (1982), and that they are, therefore, entitled to all…”
Nat'l Council of CSA Locals Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Schweiker, 526 F. Supp. 861 (D.D.C. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff contends that there has been a transfer of functions from CSA to HHS and that pursuant to the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 (VPA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 3503 , former CSA employees should be given preference when HHS selects persons to administer those programs…”
Nancy A. Pettis v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 803 F.2d 1176 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“ter retention and assignment rights than persons who were given positions at GS-13 or below in the OCS, that the board’s reliance on her refusal of the GS-13 position 9 months after her separation was erroneous, that she was denied the right to compete for Group III positions in…”
Cohen v. McNamara, 282 F. Supp. 308 (E.D. Pa. 1968).
“5 U.S.C. § 3503 (formerly 5 U.S.C. § 861 (a)).”
Ross v. United States, 566 F. Supp. 1024 (D.D.C. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs Claim The gist of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the Veteran’s Preference Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3503 , entitled him to be named Deputy Inspector General immediately upon the transfer of functions; and that, since the position was thereafter designated for inclusion in the…”
Childress, 222 Ct. Cl. 557 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
“— Plaintiffs, seven former civilian employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) who were separated from their positions at NASA’s Electronics Research Center (ERC), Cambridge, Massachusetts, through a reduction in force, seek entitlement to an…”
Thompson, 226 Ct. Cl. 588 (Ct. Cl. 1981).
“It is very questionable whether 5 U.S.C. § 3503 (governing transfers of function between federal agencies) applies to this replacement of an agency by an Article III court, but, in any event, plaintiff did not apply to this court.”
Pastore, 207 Ct. Cl. 1048 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
““(3) Plaintiff failed to argue before the Civil Service Commission’s Board of Appeals and Review that his function was transferred pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3503 (a), and that his RIF separation was in violation of Fort Belvoir Regulation No.”
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.