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. 28-03


Standard: Medical Technologist, GS-644 (May 1984)

Factor: Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Issue: Evaluating testing and laboratory operation
  responsibilities

        
   Identification of the Classification Issue

The appellants' positions were classified as Medical
Technologists, GS-644-9. They were located in a medical center
laboratory that also provided area referral services to other
medical facilities. The appellants served as technical experts
in their specialized areas and were responsible for all day-to-
day operations in a laboratory section. The operations included
handling and ensuring the integrity of specimens, performing
clinical tests, verifying and reporting results, maintaining
equipment, ensuring quality control, correlating data, advising
hospital staff, and training employees. The appellants disagreed
with the agency's evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

       Resolution

The appellants conducted a full range of routine and specialized
or nonroutine tests, which required a series of complex steps.
They also evaluated new procedures, systems, and equipment and
ensured quality control for the operating program. On the
surface, the work appeared to meet Factor Level 1-7, where
positions solve very complex problems; revise standard methods to
improve or extend test systems; or evaluate, modify, or adapt new
methods. The appellants, however, were not required to make
significant departures from previously established approaches,
and there was a limit to the modifications they could make in
order to protect the integrity of the tests they performed.
Instead of developing tests as found at Level 1-7, they used
available tests and adapted or modified them to meet their needs.

The appellants worked in components of a major program area --
the pathology department. They worked independently, made day-to-
day decisions on what procedures needed to be performed for the
work, seldom had their work reviewed, and had significant
responsibilities for conducting the work in their laboratories.
However, the department's Laboratory Officer established the
overall priorities and objectives of the department and
determined the available resources. Therefore, the appellants'
positions failed to fully meet Level 2-4 since they did not have
the full range of responsibilities associated with carrying out a
major program.

The appellants used sound professional judgment in interpreting
and adapting instructions and protocols for new tests being
introduced in the laboratory in accordance with established
policies and accepted practices. However, because of the need
for test and quality control integrity, there was a limit to how
much the appellants could deviate from accepted practices and
guidelines. Unlike Level 3-4, they did not develop new
procedures and methods nor substantially modify guidelines to
resolve technical problems.

Because of cost, the laboratory seldom purchased state-of-the-art
equipment. The manufacturers' representatives normally provided
training on using new equipment. Because of limits on deviating
from accepted practices and guidelines, the appellants did not
frequently develop new methods, test new equipment, develop
assays or quality control procedures for tests, nor perform
equivalent functions found at Level 4-4.

The appellants' work affected the outcome of the tests performed,
the diagnosis and treatment of patients, and the operation of the
laboratory. The work did not meet Level 5-4 since it did not
involve problems that were systemic in nature involving major
testing or quality assurance systems and processes, and it did
not affect total laboratory systems/programs related to the
operation of other laboratories, e.g., developing reference
methods.

In evaluating the positions, OPM found that the positions were
limited by the nature of the tests, the extent of modification
and adaptation permitted, and the overall direction provided by
the department supervisor. OPM agreed with the agency's
crediting of Levels 1-6, 2-3, 3-3, 4-3 and 5-3.

      "Back to the Basics"

The total environment in which a position operates and the
limitations imposed by oversight of other positions and
guidelines or regulatory requirements must be considered when
evaluating a position. In this situation, test and quality
control standards limited the opportunity for more difficult
testing and development of new procedures in the laboratories
where the appellants worked.

Link to C-0644-09-01