5 U.S.C. § 6127

Compressed schedules; agencies authorized to use

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

(a) Notwithstanding section 6101 of this title, each agency may establish programs which use a 4-day workweek or other compressed schedule.(b)(1) An employee in a unit with respect to which an organization of Government employees has not been accorded exclusive recognition shall not be required to participate in any program under subsection (a) unless a majority of the employees in such unit who, but for this paragraph, would be included in such program have voted to be so included.(2) Upon written request to any agency by an employee, the agency, if it determines that participation in a program under subsection (a) would impose a personal hardship on such employee, shall—(A) except such employee from such program; or(B) reassign such employee to the first position within the agency—(i) which becomes vacant after such determination,(ii) which is not included within such program,(iii) for which such employee is qualified, and(iv) which is acceptable to the employee.A determination by an agency under this paragraph shall be made not later than 10 days after the day on which a written request for such determination is received by the agency.(Added Pub. L. 97–221, § 2(a)(2), July 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 230.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Worthington v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 712 (Fed. Cl. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Worthington v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 712 (Fed. Cl. 2001). · cites it 5× “” He stated that he believed he had been unlawfully placed on a compressed work schedule in violation of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6127 (1988), and requested that the letter of instructions be withdrawn.”

Smart v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 609 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 11× “Plaintiff asserts that he is owed back pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day due to the Air Force’s improper implementation of a compressed work schedule, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 6127 (b)(1). Plaintiff has filed numerous documents, none of which contain evidence…”

Worthington v. United States, 53 F. App'x 77 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “Worthington’s claim for back pay pursuant to the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act (“CWSA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 6127 et seq. (2000), and to the Back Pay Act (“BPA”), 5 U.”

Worthington v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 181 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “” He stated that he believed he had been unlawfully placed on a compressed work schedule in violation of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6127 , and requested that the letter of instructions be withdrawn.”

Blair v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 763 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “Defendant states that plaintiffs employment under the CWSA claims was exempted from the requirements of the FLSA and any other law related to premium pay for overtime work, citing 5 U.S.C. § 6127 (a) (1982). Section 6128(a) provides in pertinent part: “The provisions of sections…”

Bureau of Land Mgmt. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 864 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1988). “5 U.S.C. § 6127 . The statute anticipates that in the case of employees represented by a union, an AWS will be the subject of collective bargaining.”

MCLAUGHLIN v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 6122 on flexible work schedules and 5 U.S.C. § 6127 on compressed work schedules— as authority for the AWS programs.”

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.