Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions, No.
28, April 2002           


United States
Office of Personnel Management


Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
Digest of Significant Classification Decisions and Opinions
April 2002
Article No. 28-06


Standard: General Schedule Supervisory Guide (June 1998)

Factor: Factors 2 and 3

Issue: Reporting to deputy positions
  Crediting for subordinate supervisors


   Identification of the Classification Issue

The appellant's position was classified as Support Services
Supervisor, GS-342-12. He was responsible for providing materiel
and related support services to line construction, maintenance,
and repair missions controlled by other organizations. He
reported to a Deputy Commander, who in turn reported to the
District Commander, the latter position having been determined
equivalent to an SES position. The Deputy Commander directly
supervised the district's administrative support components.
However, another Deputy Commander acted for the District
Commander and provided program guidance and direction to district
line mission managers. The appellant believed that his position
should be credited at Level 2-3, under its provision that a
position reporting to a deputy position be credited as reporting
to the chief. He also believed that his position should be
credited at Level 3-3b using the General Schedule Supervisory
Guide (Guide).

       Resolution

The Guide states that an assistant chief position that does not
fully share in the authorities and responsibilities of the chief
constitutes a separate, intervening reporting level. A
supervisory position reporting to such a position is treated as
if reporting to a position one level below the chief. Since the
appellant's supervisor was not a full deputy within the meaning
of the Guide because he did not act for the District Commander,
OPM sustained the agency's crediting of Level 2-2 because the
appellant reported to a position properly identified as one
reporting level below the first SES or equivalent position in the
direct supervisory chain.

The same general principle applies to the grading of deputy
positions. In order to be classified one grade lower than the
grade of the chief position to which it reports, a deputy
position must share fully in the duties, responsibilities, and
authorities of the chief. This may be either in the capacity of
alter ego, where the deputy fully shares in the direction of all
phases of the organization's work, or as manager of a major part
of the overall program when the total authority and
responsibility for the organization is equally divided between
the chief and the deputy. By definition, only one full deputy
position can exist at a given organizational level. If two (or
more) positions are designated as "deputies," they are classified
at least two grades lower than the grade of the chief position to
which they report under the Guide.

Under Level 3-3b of the Guide, several responsibilities (e.g. 1,
3, 5, 6, 8) are only credited to supervisors who direct two or
more subordinate supervisors, team leaders, or comparable
personnel. To support these designations, these subordinate
personnel must spend 25 percent or more of their time on
supervisory, lead, or comparable functions.  These
responsibilities may only be credited in situations where the
subordinate organization is so large and its work so complex that
it requires managing through these types of subordinate
positions.

The appellant supervised a GS-11 specialist who directed five
staff years of full-time employee work, one year of contractor
laboring work, and one student. Since it was reasonable to
conclude that this GS-11 employee spent 25 percent of his time
leading work, this position was credited as a subordinate
supervisor/leader under the appellant's position. The appellant
also supervised a GS-9 specialist, who oversaw the work of two
full-time employee positions, a contractor, and a student. The
PD's for the two full-time positions showed that the incumbents
worked independently in their day-to-day duties. In addition,
contractor oversight was limited to accepting or rejecting work.
Therefore, this GS-9 position was not credited as a subordinate
supervisor/leader under the appellant's position. Since only one
subordinate supervisor/leader position was supportable, OPM
concluded that the appellant's organization did not have the
characteristics that would require using multiple team leaders or
supervisors who devoted at least 25 percent of their time to
leadership responsibilities. Because the position did not
exercise a sufficient number of Level 3-3b responsibilities, OPM
sustained the agency's crediting of Level 3-2c.

      "Back to the Basics"

When evaluating a supervisory position, only the actual
requirements of the organization supervised should be credited.
Establishing multiple subordinate supervisory or leader positions
with minimal corresponding responsibilities serves to dilute
rather than magnify the actual management requirements of the
organization and should not be treated as an indication of a more
complex organization than actually exists. The authority to
carry out supervisory functions that rarely if ever occur, such
as approving costly training or extensive overtime, cannot be
credited if the organization does not require the regular and
recurring exercise of that authority. Only the actual demands
that the organization places on the supervisor may be examined in
assigning a factor level.

Link to C-0342-12-03