5 U.S.C. § 5341

Policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the policy of Congress that rates of pay of prevailing rate employees be fixed and adjusted from time to time as nearly as is consistent with the public interest in accordance with prevailing rates and be based on principles that—(1) there will be equal pay for substantially equal work for all prevailing rate employees who are working under similar conditions of employment in all agencies within the same local wage area;(2) there will be relative differences in pay within a local wage area when there are substantial or recognizable differences in duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements among positions;(3) the level of rates of pay will be maintained in line with prevailing levels for comparable work within a local wage area; and(4) the level of rates of pay will be maintained so as to attract and retain qualified prevailing rate employees.(Added Pub. L. 92–392, § 1(a), Aug. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 564.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 5341, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 471; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(97), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 90–560, § 4, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 997, provided prevailing rate system for trades and crafts and is covered by sections 5343(c), (d) and 5349(a) of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 92–392, § 15(a), Aug. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 575, provided that: “The provisions of this Act [enacting this subchapter and section 5550 of this title, amending sections 2105, 5337, 5541, 5544, 5548, 6101, 7154, and 8704 of this title, repealing section 6102 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 5341 and 5343 of this title and sections 4531 and 4571 of Title 2, The Congress] are effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period which begins on or after the ninetieth day after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 19, 1972], except that, in the case of those employees referred to in section 5342(a)(2)(B) and (C) of title 5, United States Code (as amended by the first section of this Act), such provisions are effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period which begins on or after the one hundred and eightieth day after such date of enactment or on such earlier date (not earlier than the ninetieth day after such date of enactment) as the Civil Service Commission may prescribe. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, section 5343(e)(1)(D) and (E) and (e)(2)(C), as enacted by the first section of this Act, shall not be effective until the first day of the first pay period commencing after (1) the date on which the President ceases to exercise his authority under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 [formerly set out as a note under section 1904 of Title 12, Banks and Banking] to stabilize wages and salaries, or (2) April 30, 1973, whichever occurs first.”

Repeals

Pub. L. 92–392, § 13, Aug. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 575, provided that:“(a) All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with this Act [see Effective Date note above] are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.“(b) Subsection (a) of this section does not repeal or otherwise affect section 5102(d) of title 5, United States Code, section 305 of title 44 of such Code, or the provisions contained in section 180 of former title 31, United States Code.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases, 1970–2019 · leading case: Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Honorable Harold Brown, Sec'y of Def., 698 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Honorable Harold Brown, Sec'y of Def., 698 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “See 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (1970); 5 U.S.C. § 5348 (a) (1976).”

Kent Anderson v. Donald Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, 899 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: This case involves a dispute over an interpretation of several complex provisions of the Prevailing Rate Employees Act (the “Act”), Title 5 U.S.C. § 5341 et seq. (1989), and the relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations, 5 C.”

Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, Local 1622 v. Brown, 645 F.2d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 10× “Rather, we believe that executive discretion to fix and adjust pay rates for members of the class herein is circumscribed by the principles Congress enumerated in 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (1976): (1) equal pay for equal work in all federal agencies within the same locality; (2)…”

Nat'l Mar. Union of Am. v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 59 (Ct. Cl. 1982). · cites it 4× “Employees, Local 1622, parity with the collective bargaining agreement would easily meet these three criteria: the private system no doubt has the elementary gradations imposed by § 5341(2); it obviously would be the same as the private sector as required by § 5341(3); and such…”

Wade v. Carter, Jr. v. Panama Canal Co., 463 F.2d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 206 (a) (1)) into 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (a) — the basic provision of the FEPA covering compensation of wage board employees.”

Bevevino v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 397 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 5341 . Bosco v. United States, 931 F.”

United States v. Clark, 454 U.S. 555 (1982). “1 The second principal pay system is the prevailing rate wage system (WS), 5 U. S. C. §5341 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp.”

Turner v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 588 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 6× “5 U.S.C. §§ 5341 , 5343. In addition, this legislation provides, in pertinent part: It is the policy of Congress that rates of pay of prevailing rate employees be fixed and adjusted from time to time as nearly as is consistent with the public interest in accordance with…”

Weslie C. Haneke v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 535 F.2d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “5 U.S.C. § 5341 (1)-(2) (Supp. IV, 1974).”

Baratt v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 242 (Ct. Cl. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 5301 (a) (1970), and 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (Supp. V 1975), 5 and therefore is contrary to the public interest and an abuse of discretion.”

Stephen Bosco, Charles L. Davis, Ray Dean Williams, John M. Wolf, & All Similarly Situated Individuals v. The United States, 931 F.2d 879 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “” 5 U.S.C. § 5341 . Prior to 1972, the appellants’ mail processing equipment operator positions were classified under the PRS at five IRS Service Centers, and under the GS at the other five.”

United States of Am. v. Colin C. McInnes & Cross-Appellants (Two Cases), 556 F.2d 436 (9th Cir. 1977). “This action arises out of the December 24, 1972, conversion of the appellees’ pay system from the above described “Prevailing *438 Rate” [ 5 U.S.C. § 5341 et seq.] system to the “General Schedule” [ 5 U.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.