Confirming that Your PBC Was Paid Correctly In Pay Period 11
For the paycheck that you will receive for pay period 11 (which will be paid on Monday, June 14, 2010), you should receive your performance-based compensation (PBC) for the first 10 pay periods of 2010, as well as a $300 bonus. 

To confirm that your retroactive PBC was paid correctly on June 14, you can follow these steps: 

1. Access the National Finance Center's Employee Personal Page (EPP), found at <https://www.nfc.usda.gov/personal>.  If you don't yet have an account on this system, you can sign up for an account now. 
2. When you log in, you can select the link to review your "Pay Period 11 E&L (Earnings and Leave) Statement." 

After you sign in, you can calculate your PBC salary increase by using the GAO Union PBC Calculator, found at this link:  <PBC Calculator>. 

GAO management has provided an email address for employees who have not seen the appropriate adjustments as of the planned due date.  Those employees can email GAO at RetroactivePay@gao.gov. GAO's HCO staff will respond to your inquiries as soon as possible!

Volunteers Needed for Union Election Committee
Todd Anderson, the Chair of the Elections Committee, will be stepping down from his position after June 2010, after two years of able service.  He had a crucial role in ensuring that Union representatives were elected in a fair manner.  

In the wake of Todd's upcoming departure, new volunteers are needed to help fill Todd's large role.  These volunteers will be critical in ensuring that elections are fair and that the Union continues to be represented democratically.  Members of the Elections Committee are not allowed to hold elected office as a Union Representative. 

If you would like to volunteer for the Elections Committee, please respond by email to gaoanalysts@ifpte.org.

PAB rules that Denying Employees a Pay Increase in 2006 Was Inconsistent with Prior Legislation
"Simply stated, ...employees whose performance was deemed to be satisfactory were entitled to a pay increase…," according to GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) Administrative Law Judge Steven Svartz in his March 31, 2010 decision.  The Judge found that GAO’s determination not to grant one GAO Analyst a pay increase in 2006 was inconsistent with section 3(a) of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 and further violated 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(12), a law regarding government agency personnel practices.

In 2006 and 2007 GAO employees with salaries at or above new maximum pay rates for their Bands and those whose salaries were close to the maximum pay rates for their Bands did not receive the full annual adjustment increase.  In the 2008 Act, Congress addressed pay claims of GAO employees then-employed by GAO by giving those current employees back pay, however the 2008 Act did not address the claims of similarly situated former employees who had left GAO before the effective date of the Act.

In this case, the PAB Judge limited his decision to 2006, because the employee who had filed a timely complaint had only been affected in 2006. The Judge found that, "In the plain language of the 2004 Act, which is supported by its legislative history as well as by Congressional enactment of the 2008 Act addressing the same matter shortly after the Comptroller General’s exercise of the 2004 Act, …the Comptroller General was statutorily mandated to increase… the pay of all GAO employees in 2006 who… had performed satisfactorily."

The PAB Judge further ruled that the employee is entitled to a remedy of appropriate back pay, interest, and an adjustment to their annuity. In addition, the Judge indicated that a class claim could be filed to include other affected employees.  The Judge said that although his analysis in this case applied only to the one claim, "the analysis would apply as well to any other 2006 and/or 2007 claims that may ultimately be found to be properly before me." The Judge concluded his decision by stating that the parties are strongly encouraged to resolve any remaining issues without the need for further litigation.

Other employees who had sought a remedy in the same case were not provided relief because the PAB determined that they had not filed their claims in a timely manner. However, the employees who did not receive a full annual adjustment salary increase in 2006 could be included in a class action claim.

For the full decision, see <this link>.  We will continue to report developments as they arise.