About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-194989 1 (1979-08-08)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadhmj0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DECISION FILE: B-194989 . F r-, t% f THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, 0.C. 2054e o, ?1 DATE: August 8, 1979 MATTER OF: Esther Prosser -/Claim for Retroactive Promotion -and Backpa DIGEST: Employee's transfer between district offices caused her to receive career-ladder promotion 1 month later than date she first became eligible. Promotion may not be made retroactive since proper authorizing official had not exercised discretion to promote. See Douglas C. Butler, 58 Comp. Gen. 51 (1978). Furthermore, failure to promote on the earlier date did not violate nondis- cretionary agency policy or negotiated agreement. See John Cahill, 58 Comp. Gen. 59 (1978). This decision is in response to the request from Mr. George J. Schuette, Union Representative, National Federation of Federal Em- ployees, Local 75, concerning the entitlement of Ms. Esther Prosser, an employee of the Social Security Administration, to a retroactive promotion and backpay. Ms. Prosser's career-ladder promotion was delayed 1 month due to an administrative oversight, and the question presented for our decision is whether her promotion may be made retroactively effective. Ms. Prosser was employed as a Claims Representative Trainee, grade GS-5, in the Social Security Administration Branch Office in Batavia, Ohio, and she was transferred on January 28, 1979, to the Cincinnati District Office. The Batavia office prepared the neces- sary documents for her within-grade increase which was made effective on February 11, 1979, but that office apparently did not prepare documents for her career-ladder promotion to grade GS-7. When Ms. Prosser realized her promotion had not been approved, she so advised the District Manager in the Cincinnati office who promptly requested her promotion to grade GS-7. The request-was received in the Regional Personnql Branch Office on March 22, 1979, and was made effective on March 25, 1979. The union letter states that Ms. Prosser was eligible for promotion effective February 25, 1979, and that under the negotiated agreement between the union and the Cincinnati office, her promotion was required on that date. The union argues that the Cincinnati office failed to timely consider Ms. Prosser for promotion as required under Article 16.3(h) of the negotiated agreement, and that but for this violation she would have been promoted on February 25, 1979.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most