U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart D— Pay and Allowances › Chapter CHAPTER 51— CLASSIFICATION

5 U.S.C. § 5106

Basis for classifying positions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Each position shall be placed in its appropriate class. The basis for determining the appropriate class is the duties and responsibilities of the position and the qualifications required by the duties and responsibilities.(b) Each class shall be placed in its appropriate grade. The basis for determining the appropriate grade is the level of difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work of the class.(c) Appropriated funds may not be used to pay an employee who places a supervisory position in a class and grade solely on the basis of the size of the organization unit or the number of subordinates supervised. These factors may be given effect only to the extent warranted by the work load of the organization unit and then only in combination with other factors, such as the kind, difficulty, and complexity of work supervised, the degree and scope of responsibility delegated to the supervisor, and the kind, degree, and character of the supervision exercised.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 453.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

(a), (b)

5 U.S.C. 1092.

Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 302, 63 Stat. 957.

(c)

5 U.S.C. 1093.

Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 303, 63 Stat. 957.

In subsection (c), the prohibition is restated in positive form. The words “to pay” are substituted for the words “to pay the compensation of”. The words “the group, section, bureau” are omitted as included in the words “the organization unit”. The word “actually” in the phrase “of the supervision exercised” is omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1971–2003 · leading case: Jefferson Wilson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 807 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jefferson Wilson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 807 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “5 U.S.C. § 5106 (b) (1982). According to the petitioner, under the position classification principles of 5 U.”
Paul Hinkel Donald Reynolds v. Gordon England, Sec'y, United States Navy, 349 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2003). “5 U.S.C. § 5106 . Moreover, an agency’s failure to implement a reclassification — as appellants here allege — constitutes a “failure to act” that violates the CSRA’s merit system principles.”
Charles Albert v. The United States, 437 F.2d 976 (Ct. Cl. 1971). “The last of the employees’ arguments is that plaintiff Murray’s reclassification was invalid because it was based solely on the number of persons he supervised, in the teeth of 5 U.S.C. § 5106 (c) which provides that “appropriated funds may not be used to pay an employee who…”
Todd v. Campbell, 446 F. Supp. 149 (D.D.C. 1978). “Under 5 U.S.C. § 5106 (b) (1976) the Commission must base its determination of the appropriate grade on “the level of difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work of the class.”
Brech v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 362 F. Supp. 914 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “” 5 U.S.C. § 5106 . The second is that each agency “shall” classify its employees “in conformance with standards published by the Civil Service Commission.”
Hinkel v. Sec'y Navy (3d Cir. 2003). “5 U.S.C. § 5106 . Moreover, an agency’s failure to implement a reclassification—as appellants here allege—constitutes a “failure to act” that violates the CSRA’s merit system principles.”
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.