# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bradshaw v. Laird > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0385%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 954 ## Text \ ay J q ; ‘ | x a Naw / : ‘ ‘ , . . ” " ~ ‘ 7 “ , , 7 : é : ’ | : | t j f { ¥ ; ; se : i ; . 4 ¢ } ‘ ( . : by ; , ‘¢ - Daniels v. United States, 407, F.2d 1345 (Ct, Cl. +1969). 12, 14 Note? INDEX ees © M ere ashe ASE. ee OPINIONS 3 ON JURISDICTION -ice 22 cneecececeenoeeee eee ee "QUESTION PRESENTED .......... Cea we ae : . respondents in the United States District pet Court for‘the Eastern District of Virginia; at. Ni orfolk, is embodied if a per curiam opinion. which. has not y t been reported.. The opinion’ appears in the Appendix, . infra, along with the written opinion entered by the Dis- trict Court which i is oT at 319 F: mur: (390 (1979). 2 ~ JURISDICTION | The judgment o} a the United States Court of hoses ‘ was éntered on September 13, 1971. The time for filing the petition will expire on'December 12,1971. = | \ QUESTION PRESENTED “ a ‘ | Whether respondents . have acted motionctls and. , beyond the scope of their authority under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 85341, effective Septembeg 6, 1966, and 10 U.S.C. 87474, prior to that date, in the establishing for _. the petitioners of wage rates substantially lower than re- ceived: by employees with comparable . jobs ‘and_ skills ‘who work in private industry in the geographical area’ of petitioners’ employment and substaatially lower than — deemed warranted ‘by the respondents’ own wage audits. . for’ petitioners’ employment as ‘blie-collar ‘Aircraft © . ° Examiners at the are Rework k Facility, N snes Vir- ginia. he 7 his ‘STATUTES. peas Title 5, United States Code Section 5341 in relevant : part: ee = d. , “(a). The pay of euplinieis dae skid chap-*. ter Sk of this title by: section 5102(c) (7) of this 2 : “titiSena be fixed and Sajuated from time to time | as nearly as is'consistent. with the public can _ in accordance with prevailing rates. Subject to . | secti6n 213 (f) of title e 29, the rates may not-be less . ‘thanthe appropriate rates provided for by section ONS) (1). of title ite ef £4 +5, lignes Siem Title 10, United. Sites Code Section 7474 (cfs ae by 5 U:S.C. 85341) : 5, “The Secretary of de N avy shall establish rates _ | of wages for employees of each’ naval activity é «where the rates are riot-established by.other provi- — '-sions of law-to conform, as nearly as is consistent _ » with the public’ intetest, with those. of private ’ 3 establishments i in the immediate vicinity.” ~4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE roe ; 4 Proceedings, The petitioners are blue collar Aircraft Examines, tints: of- the National Association 6f Aeronautical Examiners, and are employed\at the Naval Air Rework: ' ‘ Facitity, Norfolk, Virginia, and at -other locations throughout the United States. The respondents, Melvin’ Laird, Secretary of Defense, William Chaffee, .Secre- "gary of the Navy, Robert E. Hampton, Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, James B. Johnson, ‘Commis- sioner, Civil'Service’'Commission, and Nickolas J. Ogah- - ovic, Commissioner Civil Service Commission, are all ‘charged with the responsibility of j plementing: rules | and regulations. for ,the setting of civilian em Dyecs? a Wages at naval facilities, including thd. members f peti- . 10 Ujs.€.A. Ska ", . tioners’ class pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 5341 (a) and 5343. Prior, o Septemer 6,’ 1966, the cont boxoa statute was e ' Petitioners brought this class action. on. their own behalf and on. behalf of ‘all- other aircraft. Examiners - employed by the United States Department of Defense .- -, at ‘various naval installations throughout the United States, to challenge the method by which their wages were established. Th petitioners’ wages are.required by ‘law to conform_as ngarly as is consistent with the public interest, with ; paid in‘ private industries in the immediate vicinity, and their wages must be periodically - adjusted to assure that they so conform. The- Department of Nayy in an effort to. comply with the law, initiates . Wage Surveys in the vicinity of the Naval Air Rework Facility at Norfolk, Virginia. These surveys are made pursuant fo regulation and procedures formulated by | the Department of the Navy for this purpose. Petitioners contended in the District Court that since 1963 each of the surveys taken by the Navy was im- proper in thas they did not review. or ‘compile the wages of persons doing substantially the same work as petition- ers do, gor did the Navy survey industries similar to that of the Naval Air Rework Facility. Further, petitioners contended that the Navy’s regulations established an ar- bitrary percentage rate higher than the wage of the . tradesmen they supervise. , Since 1967 all audits or examinations of the position . of Aircraft Examimer made by and on behalf of the ‘respondents have established that petitioners’ duties and responsibilities require and justify higher wages.. Peti- tioners contended that the réspondents arbitrarily, with- out regard to the statutory poandate, refused to increase Aircraft Examiners’ percentage differential when > | - 6 5 . . A : > ‘ $ J ¢ . - * . ba ad . Office of Civilian Manpower in Washington i in 1967, ‘Tr. a 41, but the rate was not raised. In 1967, Mr. Edward Webb, of the N avy , Depart- ment, performed an on-site audit of the Aircraft Exam- iner position at the Naval Air Rework | Facility at Nor- folk. Tr. 68. During the course of the audit he was given a “thorough briefing of the kinds of duties and responsibilities they were assigned,” ” by. the Aircraft Examiners themselves. Tr. 69. Although the ultimate decision was against-implementing an increase in the differential for Examiners, the reason was not because an increase. was unw arranted. In fact, the “Memorandum to - File,” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, listing the findings of the on-site adit, gives every indication that the job responsi- bilities . and “the independence with which these em- ‘ployees [Aircraft Examiners] operate” were-such as to warrant a pay increase, In addition, some of the previous functions of Planners and. Estimators had been assumed _ by Examiners. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, p..2. Further, during the time period in question, Plan- ners and Estimators.had received pay. increases relative to Examiners, and it is in the record. that, although the details of their work differed, Planners and Estimators were “in a sense—doing the same type of work.” Tr. 96. Captain Farnsworth, as Commanding Officer of the _ Naval Air Rework Facility at Norfolk in‘a letter dated June 9, 1969, to the Naval Air Systems Command, Wash- ington, D. C., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11, strongly recom- mended that the differential of Examiners be increased * prior to the implementation of the Coordinated Federal — Wage System. Captain Farnsworth ‘in paragraph 4 of “his letter as an additional reason way the Examiners’ -diff@rential should be increased said :. “4. The problem jis further aggravated by the ° Lesteaes interim es as per OCM M - = ~~ ; @: NOTE 12531 OCMM 0333.1 :sjs of 4 April 1969 which will result in further misalign- ment betaveen Aircraft Examiners and the closely related positions of Planner and. Estimators. _ This recommendation: was not implemented. Tr. 9. Captain Farnsworth’s letter is Supported by sub- - Stantial basis in fact.. Mrs, Vida Meacham, a position’ classifier at the Naval Air Rework Facility, testified © that her duties involved studying job: responsibilities at the Naval Air Rework Facility in order to ‘arrive at suitable pay levels” applying evaluation Criteria issued _by higher level authorities. Tr. 108. She prepared Plain- | tiffs’ Exhibit-7, which is a “Recapitulation of Certain Data Relative to Aircraft Examiners. ” In addition, she performed an audit with members of the Aircraft Exam- . iners’ national association, Tr. 111, and. prepared an analysis of the job. She recommended that a pay in- crease be given due ‘to the “sophistication of aircrdft, increased complexity of weapons systems,” Tyr. 113. Plain- tiffs’ Exhibit 7 at page 3 indicates the opinion she ex- _- pressed’ in writing for use of ‘the Executive Officer of - the Naval Air Rework Facility. Mrs. Meacham’s testi- mony indicates that the commanding officer. was well aware of the complexity and responsibility invalved in the Aircraft Examiners’ work when he made his June 9, 1969, recommendation for an increased differential for Airctaft: Examiners... : Mr. William N. ae Dirccwne: of the Manpower Planning Division of the Office of Civilian Manpowet Management, Department of the Navy, testified that he directed the audit in 1967 to establish whether ar not.the Aircraft Examiners should ‘receive an increase. Tr.. 147- 118. After evaluating their findings; Mr. Price ¢ame 7 \ to a tentative decision that the Aircraft Examiners'should - : réceive an increase, however, after conferring with the Civil Service Commission this decision was ‘modified - and no increase was recommended. Tr. 125. The reason wag, that the Coordinated Federal Wage System estab- lished by Executive Order in 1968 was scheduled to go into effect in a few months which would mean that all ungraded pay would be set by a single system under the contro] of the. Civil Service Commission. Bu ——— dinated Wage Syotenr Gis HOt at that t time aid to ) Ais crate Examiners. | Mr. Gordon Kellet, a personnel’ management spe- _ cialist employed by the Civil Service Commission, testi- - fied that he told Mr. Price that the Civil Service Com- mission would object to the proposed change in the pay differential for Aircraft Examiners because they did not want to change anything until the new Coordinated Wage . _ System went into effect. Tr. 198. The Civil Service Com-. * mission made no audit/1t merely did not want to disturb the status quo. Tr. 199. The Aircraft Examiners were _put in a special “set aside”: category pending further “study, but no increase was implemented, other than an across the board interim increase for all of the super- — visory employees in the “set aside” category. Tr. 143, 196, 200: This resulted in further, disparity between Planners and Estimators’ wages on the one hand and Air- craft Examiners’ wages on the. other. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT - The decision below upholds a method of establishing . wages of government employed Aircraft’ Examiners which petitioners contend conflicts with the legislative . intent of Congress and with the express language of the statute requiring wages of civiliad employees to be estab- lished as nearly comparable as is consistent with public see 8 policy =“, prevailing wages in the area where the em- ployees work. ae Petitioners, on behalf of a large class’ of government employees, challenge as arbitrary and iHegal the use of the percentage differential method -of sétting Aircraft ——— Examiners’ wages geared to the wages of the supervised "mechanics without a direct relationship to wages received ‘ “by persons with comparable jobs and skills who work in private industry in the relevant wage areas, or without - an independent basis for. determining. a fair and competi- tive wage. : I. Statutory Guidelifes and Policy Considerations * Petitioners below challenged both the failure of the - _N avy to grant wages when its own wage audits indicated increases were warranted ds well as the method the Navy chose to determine w ages of Aircraft Examiners, the per-- . centage differential. The authority to establish petition- ers’ wages is found in 5 U.S.C, 85341 ,, effective since September, 1966, which provides that wages are to be | > set “as nearly as is consistent with the public interest in - accordance with prevailing rates.” The predecessor stat- : ‘nr 10 U.S. C. 7474, had the same” F roquinqnhent. In establishing wages for supervisory evel sitipleny: | ees the N avy conducts wage surveys of private jobs com- — Ea parable to the government employees w ho are supervised but no surveys of privately employed supervisory em-— - Pployees. The government supervisory ‘ ‘level employ ees have their wages determined by a percentage differential . above the rate of the mechanic they supervise. This is: the methiod the respondents applied in determining the _ wages of Aircraft Examiners. The N avy’ s pay mites in sddbion: to being expressly regulated by $5341, are governed by-a-clear statement of 9 wy iat th oo >. _ the ing ‘congressional intent which should be con- * ~ —Sidered in construing the statutes and in determining whether respondents have violated thei? duty under the law. This is set forth in 5 U.S.C, $5301 as follows: “Tt is the policy of Congress that Federal pay fixing be based on the principles that— . & ie (1) There be equal pay for substantially equal -. . work, and pay distinctions ‘be maintained in keeping with work and performance distinc: tions; and (2). Federal pay rates be compatable with pike: | ate enterprise pay rates for the samé levels of work.” (Emphasis supplied), = _ This legislation is consistent with prior legislation ° establishing ‘a federal policy. of maintaining competitive salaries, The Supreme Court in Amell v, United States,. 384 U.S. 158, 161, n.7 (1966), a case involving the juris- ‘ diction-of the Court of Claims-to- hear actions for wages brought by certain government employees, recognized - the trend in government-employment to pay salaries comparable to private industry: “In 1962, Congress enacted the Federal hidists “Reform Aét, making an explicit declaration of — policy that federal’ salary fixing should be com- ° parable to private enterprise salary rates for the same levels of work, Act of October 11, 1962, Pub. ' L, 87-793, 76 Stat 814,.5 U.S.C. $81171- 1174 (1964 ed.) Pursuant to congressional direction the Presi- . dent issued an Executive Order, Exec. Order No. © 11173, Aug. 20, 1964, 29 Fed. Reg: 11999, taking - full cognizance of the congressionai p licy enunci- , ated in the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962” -... Thus, the whole trend in government, compen- sation is to draw individuals into public service by 10 f™~ providing salaries at least comparable to those aeey woule earn on entering private industry. a There can be na. enmtita that: the congressional interest - in providing for comparable wages was ‘to enable. the / Federal Government to be competitive in the job markets _ surrounding relevant wage areas. Although the governihent contended heifie that pe- titioners had no counterparts in\private industry and that petitioners are not supervisory level employees, but pro- . duction facilitating employees, the government utilized _ the same method of establishing their wages as used by - -supervisqry level employees, the percentage differential. , Petitioners desire to raise the issue of the arbitrariness | of this method. Cf. Rogers v. Laird, 319 °F. Supp. J (E.D. Va. 1970), affirmed’ 4th Cir, (May 19, 1971), in which a petition for writ-of certiorari has beeavdocketed in thi Court. No. 71 242, 40.L.W. 3126 (filed itch 17, Ay g j eee oe - Conflict with Court of ‘Chiesa ond other : ‘Decisions of this Court. a The respdndents, on the ‘one hand, contended® below that it was reasonable and proper to “set aside” considera- tion of Aircraft Examiness’ wages until the Civil Service ‘ . Commission could study those positions which were dif- * ferent from most others in the Federal. pay system. On _ the other hand, the respondents.attempted to justify the use of a percentage differential as a method of establish- ing wages of employees such as thel Aircraft Examiners because of their inability to make direct comparisons with other jobs in the private sector of the economy and ‘Be- cause the use’ofsa percentage differential resulted in \ fair and uniform wage. The two positions are untenable ~ in this case because when plaintiffs sought an adjustment ~- tt ee ASSIA the Didastndice Ne ¢ . wpe Ge Oi 5 Sa eine DS a ohio, oat hited a . ee phar wat % * .. Bt in their/differential ‘and ‘when all the indications and evidenée warranted an in¢rease, the Department of the Navy declined to make an“ increase on the grounds that _ the method of establishing wages of Aircraft Examiners / was.unique and the Civil Service Commission.wanted to ' preserve the status quo until-it could determine how -to establish plaintiffs’ wages as. part of the Coordinated ~ Federal Wage System. Whether a position is, unique should not estes a decision to pay wages that are warranted. The defendants have a statutory duty to adjust wages. They have a stat- utory duty to pay competitive salaries: Yet when their own findings indicated that a Particular: group of ‘em- ployees, the Aircraft Examiners, were inadequately com- pensated, the respondents declined to act. a - Crncatedil, the besilin is On petitioners*to show . that respondents acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner. United States v) Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, and Daniels v. United States, 407 F.2d 1345 - ‘fo & 1969). However, petitioners contend that the burden has been met becatise the’ respondents have 1 not determined their wages’ according to law. The principal case vioteising government wa setting under statutory direction is Daniels v. ited . States, 407 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1969). Although the Dis- trict Court below relied heavily on Daniels, petitioners: believe that the principles set forth in that case are in- ~ consistent. with the Court of ‘Appeals’ ‘decision elow. . The rupee 2a was an action brought by Navy em- . ployees allegi g that the Navy had acted arbitrarily. in : . fixing their salary rates as ships’ pilots by applying a “perc age ee of seventy percent to the base pay fox,a 40-hour Week of a Class A Ships Master in the Military Sea Transportation, Service rather than basing . 12 6 eo . Aad their wages on the rates of. pay of non- government pilots _in the samé area. There, the statutes in question govern- ing the establishment of Navy pilots’ pay the applicable — Statutes provided - for pay comparable not with local wage rates, but -with “nationally prevailing rates and oe. '. practices in the maritime peta A [Emphasis supplied]. ee US.C. $5342, * In the Desiels case, the factent situation materially differed from the case at bar,-There, the Navy had per- - formed a detailed investigation of ship pilots’ salaries in the private sector. That investigation yielded an duthori- tative report which was introduced into evidence, The Court of Claims placed heavy réliance on the recommen- dations in the Navy’s report which concluded that a uni- form national salary rate should be established for pilots... ‘Further, in support of:the N avy’s determination to set the pilots’ wages by a umiform percentage differential _ method the Court of Claims — out. that i in ithe re- port, supra, at 11347, | ¥ “It was found that no adequate: salacy formula cbuld be established upon a classification jof ‘the _relative- functions, experience, and qualifications of. the pilots; since most pilots performed or wete - ' qualified to perform the same duties to a greater or. less degree. In addition, the report determined " _ that Navy pilots had no exact counterparts in the maritime in@usty.” (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied) = | at . The terms of the anpliceble statute require Aircraft > - Examiners’ wages to be-set competitively in each wage’ Aircraft Examiners, but sets their pay. at a percentage “rate over the men they examine. There is no necessary ‘relationship sanninons the pay of Ae mechani ) 13° . area. The Navy does not conduct wage surveys of private - —iels, where it wes contended that the pilots’ pay was ar- ‘ Adieu there may be no exact counterpart to the Air-. J e 3 Aveaosneaad percentage differential. . of. Navy pilots as a result of applying a ‘geccohiens dif- - J ferential was directly related to salaries paid other Pilots, even though there was no exact counterpart. The respondbinis confronted by complaints from. the - National Association of Aeronautical Examiners that the petitioners’ percentage | differential was inadequate to “compensate them for the type of*work they were en- . ° . gaged in, did ‘conduct an audit. The Navy Department, | at every level from position classifier to commanding officer at the Naval Air ework Facility to Director of the Manpower Planhifig Division of the Office of Civil- ian Manpower Management found that the wages. of Aircraft Examiners were too low and that the percentage differential should be increased. However,,the increase. was denied, not because it. was unwarranted, but because of the impending shift in responsibility over petitioners’ cals wages fromthe N avy Department to. the Civil. Service: “Commission, the Civil Service Commission had requested. that the Aircraft Examine®s be put into a “set aside” cate- ' gory. Thus; while the: evidence established that the per- * . Centage differential: applicable *to Aircraft Examiners was inadequate by the’N! avy’ s\own standards, no, inctease’ was implemented. — : x a en Bae Petitioners seek review by this Court in order to: construe the Statutes in question: and in order to chal- _ lenge the percentage differential method of establishing” wages, generally, and. the ‘failure of the Navy to gfant | what petitioners contend.was a warranted and statutorily. 2 compelled raise, specifically. The Navy still had authy- ity over Aircraft Examiners’ wages at the time it con- sulted with the Civil Service Commission’ and at .that time, and for several years prior, the Navy could have, . and petitioners.contend should have, made an incerase in aoe -~- The ‘Court of Claims | in Danich, supra, however, _ required that the percentage ‘differential be directly re- , lated to the “prevailifeg rate” for: private employees in the same fi¢ld; that there be some independent basis for determining the salary Tevel rather than arbitrary per- centage differential over thé lower level employees. The respondents failed to meet this requirement in the case at bar. . Respondents under the catch-all of the administra- tive discretion have declined to ‘comply with the man- date of Congress to pay competitive and fair wages in keeping with prevailing rates. Under the statutes, they must pay prevailing rates. The statutory language is rendered meaningless by the respondents’ actions unless th¢y can show some compélling reason in the public in- terest why an adequate wage Should not be paid: Mere administrative convenience is not so compelling ‘as to * justify sttting aside the legitimate demands of govern- -thent employees, particularly where the law is plain in its _ requirements. Petitioners wish to bring before this Court. the issue df whether, in fact, there was an abuse of dis- cretion of: the respondents’ decision to allow administra- tive convenience to prevent implementation of a wage in- “crease me by law. wer For the foregoing reasons, petition for a writ of | '* “certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, ‘ | PERRY BRADSHAW, ct Ry “44 .. By/s/STANLEY E. SACKS -— - Stantey E. Sacks— . . . SACKS, SACKS & TAVSS © : - 405 First-& Merchants National Bank Bldg. Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Counsel for Petitioners 2 2 a... oe 16 3 ae | . | APPENDIX — - Pa - or, - - , - . ‘ ’ . * - ~ - - . e - e@ % + ~ . . . - - 5 - - a . INDEX ~ Opinion and Order of the District Court... Opinion of the Court Oe oe teen ocean WARE: Plaintiff's Exhibit No, 22... aes aoe Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3....... aN Ais ani Saeed a Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 : eaaree! eee ba ‘ Plaintiff's Exhibit. No. c: iia “16a Plaintiff's/Exhibit No. 6..cscccnneenpeegennneineee ta "Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7%... ‘cobain Lettér from Captain W. .D. Farnsworth to Naval, Air i Loe Systems Command from Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11..25a ~ . Excerpts from the testimony of William N. Price..27a Excerpts from tlie testimony, of Gordon N. Kellett...:......28a . ., & _ OPINION AND ORDER OF THE DISTRICT. COURT © IN. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR Lien EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA... Norfolk Division — "PERRY BRADSHAW, WARREN D.) _ TUCKER, and BERNARD CG. KELLY,) alee ) Civil Action * - 7 aa ) -No. ; MELVIN LAIRD, Secretary. of ) _ 399-69-N ‘ Defense, et al, ’ , | Defendants ) FILED NOV. 19, 1970 5 Ww. FARLEY POWERS, mR, Clerk By a Jean I. Basiight ; ? , Riot Clerk . OPINION AND ORDER This i is 4 class action on behalf of all ere of the National Association. of Aeronautical Examiners, employed at seven Naval Air Rework Facilities through- out‘the United States. Plaintiffs are civilian blue collar . workers employed by the Department of the. N&vy as Aircraft Examiners at the Naval Air Rework facility in Norfolk, Virginia. This action challenges the defendants’: * implementation of the statute under which plaintiffs’ wage rates are established. Plaintiffs contend that the ° . defendants have failed to comply-with the Congressional cl mandate expressed in 5 USC $5341, applicable since September, 1966, which provides: - -The,pay of employees excepted from Chapter 51 of this Title by Section 5102 (c) (7)-of this Title - shall be fixed and adjusted from time to.time as , = la . at e te -* z . oe - ~ nearly as is consistéht with the public interests in accordance with prevailing rates. Before September 1966, 10 U. S. C.. 87474 applied to the establishment of wage rates for civilian employees in - the Department of the N avy. The Secretary of the Navy shall establish: rates of wages for employees of each Naval activity where . the rates are-not established by. other ‘provisions of Aaw to conform as nearly as is consistent with the public. interest. with. those of: private establish. = -ments in the immediate vicinity. bs dacs ‘ 5. fas” 7 M aa Ss ell 4 Paes 14,.1970); we held'that use of the percentage > ferential was reasonable and proper for setting wage . ba where it ifivolved numerous trade classifications “and wage markets, covering large areas of the county, and. the evidence otherwise established its use feasible, Basic- ally, the considerations existing | in | Rogers v. Laird exigt -here. Ps we ye eey Beye x e 2a '. The wages of Aircraft Examiners.are based upona . percentage differential over the specific mechanics which. - they supervise, ‘that is, over the machinist, electrician, electronics mechanics, etc. The wages for the mechanics _ are set in individual labor market areas based upo what . is generally paid for the same kinds of. work’ in private establishments in the labor market area. A labor market. area is considered to be that area wherein an individual can change his place of employment without having to ES change his place of Hiving. In ascertaining the pay of the mechanics, the Navy surveyed those firms in the ‘labor market atea!. which employed mechanics who used essentially the same skills required of mechanics employed by the Navy. In its “surveys of private industry, the Navy was unable to - find a: position to duplicate the Navy’s position of Air- craft Examiner, nor have plaintiffs shown that a dupli- cate position exists in private industry. Here, no com-- “Aircraft Examiners. They complain othe use of the per- - centage differential pver the pay of the:mechanics they supervise in fixing their pay, and the percentage dif-_ plaint is made of the pay. of the in but only of the ferential wsed for them is too low. The issue here ig not. tated the plaintiffs a whether the Court would have gr higher percentage of dif. erential other: means to fix the wage: ‘the r. have used some _.If the matter is one within the discretion of the Navy, the Court has no jurisdiction. Aircraft Examiners’ are’ ‘responsible for deciding exactly what. work must be _ done to the-various systems.and components of af-.airplane- when it is brought to the facility for overhaul. Since the Examiners’ position bears an obvious relationship to that 1—There are about 150 labor market areas in the United’ States, and 7 major — * areas where Aircraf t Exaininers are,concerned. . ° ¢ sae > a 3a © iésue is, whether the — Navy has complied with the statute\or acted arbitrarily. coe - & 4 ‘~ . iin ch chy Sib it asc 25 Naa a cs NT baa Sachets ” s : ‘ 1 fs di k ae : D aiceial® elena edi NY ee ear Ban Ree Mie eae EOE E MAE Beets Tt «RMT . ay ; ; e . s . bd ° of the mechanics, comparing the two wage, scales seems redeive @ proportional, wage: increase whenever the me- = appropriate. Naturally the Aircraft Examiners _ _ chanics receive an increase. This occurs almost annually. cs Neate plaintiffs’ attack is ‘directed principally at the actual amount of the differential rather than its use, a closer examination of that claim is necessary. Specific - differential detérminations are based on judgments of the skills Tequired and: responsibilities inherent in -the work, This is also true of all positions for which the percentage differential is used. Before 1963, the . per- ‘ centage differential fer Aircraft Examiners ‘and. three other positions was 12%: In 1963, the differential for the Examiners and two ether positions was increased to. ° 16%, while the differentia! for the other position was in- creased to 20%. Since 1963,-all the other positions have received higher differentials than the Aircraft Exam- iners, In 1969, th® differential for Aircraft Examiners was increased to 19.2%, but plaintiffs contend that as far back as 1963, their neal should have Oren 25%: oe wage specialists and auditors. None of these, recommen- dations was approved after consideratton by the proper authorities. Plaintiffs’ contention is that their differentia] . should be the same as the related Position of Planner and Estimator, which is 25%. However, plaintiffs do not dis- pute that the Planner and Estimator position requires a highet “degree of skill and responsibility. Pointing to ~ the increased complexity and sophistication of aircraft in recent years, plaintiffs claim that these developments _have increased their duties and responsibilities. Certainly this is true, but plaifitiffs overlook the obvious fact that the duties and responsibilities of the aircraft mechartics, = ae = ae Pa. aN There is no factual basis for plaintiffs’: contention a other- than. the :recommendations. of so some. subordinate | \ \ \ \- ? ath pe on whose. wage scale. thei differential is “based, have ~ “increased to the same extent. Since the wage: scale of the. ° ~ mechanics has increased-annually to reflect these tech- nological advances, and the Examiners’ differential i other positions have increased more than that of Aircraft Examiners can have no bearing on.the- ‘merits of _ plaintiffs’ case since there is little correlation ‘between — = positions and. the others may require ‘greafer degrees of. skill and responsibility. As has been indicated, plaintiffs base their claim for increased pay on various. reconimendations that the~ differential be increased to.25%. These recommenda- ‘tions were made by subordinates whose repre mio were rather limited and, in some cases, based, solely on - briefings by the, Resniness: themselves. Plaintiffs ignore. the testiraony of Phillip Meyerson, Director of the Per-* sonnel Management Divisién of the Office of Civilian _ Manpower Management; that the recommendations for ~ and-against increasing the Examiners’ differential was. _ tgo high. Mr. Meyerson testified that he ‘and his staff - ” reviewed all the information available to them in 1969... ie cre unanimous judgment,” they: concluded that the duties and responsibilities of Aircraft Examiners did not call for an increase in,their percentage differential. e > Part of chis controversy. concerns the: improvement of the Civil Service Commission, which in 1967, was as- ‘suming responsibility: for setting the wages of civiliins © within the Department of the Navy. Because of this'sit- , - uation, the Navy consulted with the Commission before ~ making’ any changes in its compensation arrangements, The Commission ‘was preparing to implement its new * \ cwordinted ‘Federal: Wage System which would bring -mpre-than a dozen different wage systems from various” \ ‘ . © o°e : . - \ ° . a. “ . Pe : “ a ‘ ‘ ad Zz > ° ' e ‘* fa ~ ~ Ja ¥ a \ tS BETES OD Ry AB SBE, PRAT ‘ UII 1 "Teeter EES BLP IEL, odd. ‘ "+ Be Sen 389 *, federal agencies into a single system under the Commis- sion’s ene Many positions to be included in the new system, including that of Aircraft Examiner, were not graded ‘for pay. purpose and were substantially different - from the pay systems used for most.federal blue ¢ollar | workers, The Commission had these ee Positions that tho Sitions could not receive pay increades: This. _is Obvious, because in 1969, plaintiffs percentage differ-— " ential was increased from. 16% to 19. 2%. Plaintiffs at- tempt: to put. the Commission’s request, that the Navy not make changes ini its pay system while the new wage | system was being implemented,*-in a ‘nefarious light, claiming that the request was the sole reason’ the dif- ‘ferential for Aircraft Examiners was not increased. The evidence, as ‘already related, ‘simply: does not! support ’ ‘this. contention. Moreover, Mr. Meyerson testified that ¢ re et od the decision | was. independent of the Commission’ s request: “pha a hot. to change: the pay system. / Plaintiffs have jabeled the defunia to authorize the increase in differential an “arbitrary, unjustified and -discriminatory denial of pay increases... that is required — by law.” .The determination not to. suihorise an increase — y was an: executive ‘decision, reasonable on its face and within. the bounds of the discretion, prescribed by’ the statute. Plaintiffs have not shown that the decision was arbitrary, Capricious, or unfair in any way. Under these circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the determinatiéns made by the ‘Executive’ Branch of the’ Government. Ge fives Fae The statutory provisions ‘governing wage. setting for non-gradéd civilian employees specifically réquire phat. these pay scales be “consistent wie the public interest.” Spee - Ga 7 . gre ~ v “16 PAG . | This has seas interpreted as.a delegation to the Execu- tive of a wide discretion’ in fixing the wages of its.em- ployees. See Rogers v. Laird, ‘supra. Ay ordingly, judi-. _ cial review of an Executiye decisions” properly limited .: to those circumstances. where: the é Bxecutive. has" exceeded - its authority or its action is cleatly wrong. Udall v..Tall-. man, 380 U:S. 1, 16 (1965); @nited States v..Shimer, ° 367 U.S. 374, 381. A1961). Probably, most relevant in: describing the Court’s function under these cifcumstarices” ig the Court of” ‘Claims. ‘recent statement ‘in Daniels Vv. “s ‘United States, 407 F.2d 1345, 1347 (Ct. Cl. 1969) : lt should be dicaeres the ne authorities nt ‘this court will not, purport to tell the Secretary of the Navy what. salary formula and. base, ba should adopt. Our concern is’simply to deter . whether plaintiffs have met their heavy burden * - proving that the Secretary’s action in this instance | "was so pete as to be clearly wrong. : Plaintiffs have not shown that the decision’ not-to author-" ize an increase in differential was so’ arbitrary ‘as to be _ Clearly wrong. To the contrary, defendants have offered, affirmative evidence that the determifation was within . its discretion. ‘Congress vested authority for these deci-* . « sions in}the Executive, apparently because of its Expertise - and ° familiarity with - the particular. ‘consideration in- ‘ volved. That Bratich of Government: is much better. qualified, to pass on the question: of wages than the Court. Since plaintiffs haye not shown that this authority :was apres oe their action is. DISMISSED: . s/ RICHARD B. Kétiam | _ United States District Judge’ @ e e. ” ff : Norfoli, Virginia obama 18th, 1970. y : . “* . Civil. Service. Vemeniesion, xX “OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS we UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS” “— THE FOURTH CIRCUIT - —— No. “A- | ieee 3 Perry Bradshaw, Warren D. T ucker, _and Borage? c. Wally, te Appellants, vtries a . “Melvin Laird, Secesiacy ef Defenge, William Chaffee, Secretary of the Navy, ‘Robert E. Hampton; Commissioner, ighntat J Civil Service Comfhigsion, —~— .s ir James B. Johnson, Commissioner of v Civil Service Commission, and Nickolas J. -Oganovic, Commissioner,- ar ppelleds. _ Appeal from the Uniteg States District Court iopthe , Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. acre " Richard- B- Kellam, District Judge. | ae . (Argeed August 26, 1971 : i Decided September 13, 1971. ) Before HAYNSWORTH, “Chief Judge, and WINTER, . and RU aso orereas ir a te. ‘ Stanley E. Sagks rsicks, Sacks ss Taves on Brief) for, Appellaiits, and William D. Appicr, Attorney, Depart~ ment of Justice; (L. Patrick Gray, LI, Assistant Attor- | ney General, Alani S. Rosenthal, vAttorncy, Department’ - of Justice, and Brian P. Getfings, United — OR, « on brief) for Appellees. ; ay ll in liew of the previous. 2% i 5 orca forwarded by reference (eee , ye tt is ‘also suggested ‘that in adlition to the existent _ pay. Nermilla- WF-10, which is based on GWS pay level W. il plus differential F, that a new wage formula, be established ta ‘keep the proposed formula in: line with - the présent grouping. of Inspection Service ratings. For’ . example, “WF-44” might be idded to Table-3.2 of NCPI 531, Enclosure'l. -This formula number (WF-44) might then stipulate 7 “Base Level” is W-11, 2nd step rate equals ‘2nd step rate for W-11 plus area rate for GWS differen- tial “F”: ; Bet Ist and 3rd step rates from Table 3. 5s Ss." B. MU LLHOLAND - By direction THIS ISA TRUE COPY. ° 10a > _-PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 3- MEMORANDUM TO FILE .-°> °° s* - Subj: Wor k-site audit of Aircraft Examiners at NARF a Norfolk Z . BACKGROUND: - The National Association of Aeronautical Examiners re- quested an audit of their job-because they believe their. duties increased ‘in scope. and have added responsibilities | since last upward change in differential was authorized | in February 1963. The visit was made by Ed Webb oon (0532.2) on 13-14 of ‘December. Charles - Gard, | BROCMM LB also visited North Island on these dates - for the same purpose. : 3 CONTACTS: °°. 7 Sar nn SC NAS personnel: Mr. Gossett, Senior Classifier, and Mr. Brown IRO.. - . oo ts NARF personnel: Mr. Cahill, Su pt. Production Control- ler; GS-14, Mr. Percy, Supt. I, Mr. Spiers, Gen. Fore- man (I), Mr. Eike, Foreman (Ldgma) var j Union Officials: Mr. Bradshaw, National President, and. Mr. Kelly, President of Local ; : Airctaft Examiners: .Messrs. Perry, Ashley, Robinson, oe. Tugker, Hampton, Crawfor, Culp, Lancaster, Stakbach iia 4 Ales SS ss ms SC, ae DISCUSSION: : ' oe (1) Mr. Gossett ‘and’ Mr. “Brown believe that a higher pay rate is warranted: Reiterate their position of January - _ 1963 that because of the dependency ‘on Examiners, 25% : ’ ' defferentials appropriate proper. S setae ae e . (2) Mr-Cahill: as Head of the Production Planning & - Control Group, he believes Examiners deserve more money. They have the authority to deterrhine depth of rework. He agreed that the job description attached adé- * quately describes Examiner duties and-is accurate. Em- : ployees are not involved in estimating work as o~— in the Planner & Estimator rating which concerns capacities, manpower schedules, work programs and availability of material. , Saba (3) Shop Supervisors: They recognize that the’ responsi- bility. for depth of overhaul ts vested in the Examiner. Indications are that very few differences occur and then it usually-ends in favor of the Examiner. ‘ eee -"WORK FUNCTIONS: The attached job description describes the overall duties of employees rated as Examiner. It is further substan- tiated by station directives and ‘functional statements—Of particular note is the independence with which these em- ployces es. did a shop supervisor appear on _ _ the scene. - Theré are’ 47’ Examiners and‘ 3 Supervisory Examiriers. Quité-often they function as a team with each — man responsible for his specialty. ‘The Leader rating is not used. In-a sense, these.men’ are tfouble-shooters. They minutely examine aircraft to find out. what is wrong; what should be, reptaced; what can be repaired and check and test equipment on plane to hold item re- movals to a minimum. Although they determine depth of rework, it was noted that the shop supervisor estimated - +the manhours for rework. Two duties previously found in P & E seem to hate beén assumed -by the | (1) he orders material needed and (2) on occasion he _may report to crash scene to assist in determining extent of damage-and disposition of aircraft. op - 4 a he s oe \ ‘ © TYPES OF REPORTS: ; - 1. Pre-induction.. Reflects — operational environment, ~ custodian, age; flight hours, deployed area, technical di- rectives incorporated. 2. Analytical History: date on aircraft. from which item removed, flight hours, landings, etc. * 3. Missing Replacement Items List: Parts no., nomencia- a. material availability. | ~ 4. Discrepancies: log shop, check-off, explanation of dis- crepancies not corrected. 5. Request for Engineering Information: Part no., _back- ea ground information, recommendations, etc. «6. Accessory and coniponent s service record; Directives status, description, compliasice, — MEMORANDUM TO FILE F —Subj:.. Visit t) Robins Air Force Basé, Ga. _>~ the following conta * mR Work similar to that of ‘Aireraft Examiners xiee at i rce Base. While visiting on February. 7-8, re made: Mr.-R. Owens, Senior Classifier . Mr. W. Polk, wry) bogs Mr. A. Crews, d A/C Quality Branch Mr. W. Poland, adh E & I Unit Mr. J. Hill, Supérviséry Aircraft Inspector Mr. M: McCauley, Aircraft Inspector Electrician |. Mr. J. Daniels, Aircraft Inspector (Airframes) 2. The PAR type functions have not been ideand at the base. to the same degree as in Navy. No’ pointed in~ structions mave been a to give depth- of- work ‘ie ¢e ————eE~w % . authority to ma Cramthition Unit. Quality Assurance | conducts a sampling review of the examiners findings and Production Planning’ makes the. decisions concerning depth of rework. There is a-separate A/F rating ‘for “employees engaged in crash’ damage examination. Sig- nificant observations were: a. Employees are concerned with visual examining for . obvious defects in n accordance with work guides and in- . structions. b. Discrepanicics found dire noted more. for protection of examiner and are not necessarily | corrected, c. Not concerned, with any examination when external ° power is being applied fo craft, ie: landing gear, instru- cam, ot. ze d. Not feepeasiite fortompliahce with changes in tech- nical directives or modifications. "EPacaee “ Geachuian: The examining function exists -but 1s not organized as in Navy. Ours is a better job with au- horities and responsibilities being spelled out. See A/C xaminer job description which reflects major differ- es ele PVP BAD ORD - PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 4. 2 FS Gide UARF:100/JB5. sae SO te a ee >. : _ LL March 1969 From: Commanding Officer, Naval Air Rework ~~ Facility iar Pe eo Naval Air Station, N orfolk, Virginia 23511 | To: Navai Air Systems Comimand Representative, ‘Atlantic, , si in aa ' Nayal Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia 23511 — Subj:. Pay Category review of positions of Aircraft .- «. Exarhiners; comments concerning ~ Ref: (2) OCMM Itr OCMM 053:ebs of 22 Nov 1968 ae Reference (a) requested an audit of a sample of three positions, each representative..of a group’ of positions in the Examination and Evaluation ‘organization. vi; - 2. . Three representative samples of position déstriptians — - » for Aircraft, Examiner are in thd-process of being evalu- | ated by the local classification office: Position audits.will _ begin the week of 17 March 1969. ee ) “3. Preliminary evaluation of the position descriptions indicate that the positions should remain in the ungraded ‘ _ category. Upon completion of the audits’ résuits will be _ forwarded. eee yt ec J.T. HAYES. - By direction 8 Je _PLAINTIFE’S EXHIBIT NO. ‘5. PR ape, 3 Sa 25/12500/109 wey vols ess the Aircraft Examiner rating. When the pay formula for ° 4 Se Examiner was changed upward on | February 1963, the * changt refiected this Office's consideration of the impact —, “ie. Aircraft Rework Program had on the Work. This . : consideration was an important Webi the pay . differential at its Present level [WF 16% +: ‘rating * -concetned’] « > ; 12/13&14/6 %.:- . @ Sey ‘ On-site job aifit. by Mr Ed Webb of ocMM of wotk of Aircraft miners. Audit initiated at Yequest of thé * . . ior tation -of Aircraft eExaminers: At local . standard overhaul pracess |” (U ndeMining has been a ded * To determine what work will/or wil] not be accom: . plished, as pointed out in paragraph 8.¢. above, the posi- tion incumbents must exercise discernment and judgment “in making such appraisais which wilk directly affect the: material readiness of the aircraft and ‘their systtms and components. In addition, changes in ¢he complexities , of aircraft, engines, components, systems are .taking place at a rapid’ rate, atid ‘the “position incumbents. are re-° \ * ay . 1 - > 7 2 a oe > " . ? quired to be knowledgeable, in those respects. The knowl-. ede extends dcross trade Bnes-to a — degree _in various instances. In addition, incumben “must. have _ a thorough knowledge ‘of ‘Principles used and- vast prac- . _ tical experience in the overhaul, maintenance, modifica- tion and-repair of” aircraft and their systengs ‘and com- ponents, as indicated in the pésition descfiptions and also in the foregoing analysis. Thus it- is believed that the © Aircraft Examiners’ fevel of complexity and. gesponsibil, “ity have both increased im. recent years, In -that respect oe attention is invited to paragraph 6.c. above which’ indj- . ihe, , ‘ "cates that the “positibn incumbents’ knowledge of aitcraft " and.of the systems and components peculiar to each ‘con- figuration worked at Norfolk extends beyond the three basic models regularly inducted for progressive aircraft - rework.” As a result the fOSition inctimbents serve as a focal point within the Naval Air Rework Facility for collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and developing spe- cialized information about the aircraft and’ their .com- ponents and systems, In addition, they provide recommen- dations to. program planning managers, to engineering _ Petsorinel, to operations analysts, to. production Supervis- ors, to the PAR Liaison Officer, and to Squadron Cam: | - manding Officers relative to a variety of considerations , contributing to the ultrmate material readiness of air- craft.” It.thus becomes. apparent that the Aircraft Exam- - iners’ efforts Have cansiderable~ impact on’ the overall - effectiveness of the Naval Air Reivork F acility to accom- plish its. primary. mission,. which is “to maintdin and “operate facilities for and‘ perform*a complete range of depot level report ‘operations on designated “ weapons systems, accessories, and equipment: Manufacture parts “and assemblies as required ;provide éngineering séFVices -in the development of changes of hardware design; fuir- '* nish technical services on aircraft maintenance and logis-. tic problems; and .perform,: upon specific request or as-- signment, other levels of aircraft maintenance.” © ~’ ar ; ~~ ae ea ie ee ee -~ ids ea - me % — -as ” * . e . 6/fht/69 Writer's Comments: ‘Comparison of the’ -immediatély alfove- Aerie ee consideratioris of a 1969 arate sly Pesala beabsenen of aie aircfaft, their omponeats, and of their-vartous imterrelated s\$ dding to the Aircraft Examiners’ fevél of difficu that the reliance placed upen them by anagement ds a ‘doordinating and focal point for insurifg aircraft mate- - . Feat readiness and safety-of-flight capability is consist- ya, cg¥ adding: to the. Aircraft met as of jc. - pe a eetare f ; : : ‘\ eo ae 7 E tigla / . Bey ae ver by and {i : Tespéctfully. submived/ A pe - .. on R4+-June 1969— © ore Sn Oe: 8/( Mis) Vida H. Ncaclecin ce ia * Position Classifier - = - —— Pa Ep at > - & a “LETTER” FROM CAPTAIN w. D. “FARNSWORTH io NAVAL Aik SYSTEMS COMMAND Fae "PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. NO. 1} i." Code IRC* si, * 12550 7 .From: “Commanding Officer, Naval Air Rework Facility, _Naval Air Station, Norfalk, ‘Virginia _ 23511 ; : “fs COS To: Naval Air Systems Command Cote O4A4; Me : Washington, D. C. 20360, - ii iar Via: Naval Air Sits Command Rchrdscatative, _ Atlantic, Neval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia 23511 “tt “ - Subj: Pay adjustment for Aircraft Examiners; information concerning - -| Encl: (1) Position description typical of Aircraft * * Examiners (2) Evaluation report of Aircraft Examiner positions - . This Facility has aie receivéd an’ addittosal re- yt from the National association of Aircraft Exam- iners, Local Na. 4, seeking to update NAVEXOS P-~ 1005- 382 ¢ purpose béhind the request is for an in- crease in the pay differential for Aircraft Examjner. A -. similar. request was denied by the Director of Civilian : Manpow er Management i in September 1967. 2. Sictheies (1) ae" (2) were isihisiined in reSponse_ toa letter dated 22 November. 1968 = the Office of ~ ix? Se 25a oo ae Tn. ee = . 2 ‘ . . lnc Special my wey ; oer ‘ ve ve. ‘ : Civilian Manpower Management regarding a Pay cate- gory review for Aircraft Examiner positions, The m- thendation ‘cogtained in enclosure’ (2) was that thd posi- tions should remain in the ungraded pay c ategory. Haw- ever, the Aircraft Examiners are not receiving pay com- ° _ mensurate with their. responsibilities as defi ined in .en- closures ( (1) and (2). he ; a 3. It has been in ‘excess of two: years since: the initial request for an increase, and information on record irdi- - cates that no action will be takes anti! the- #plenrenta: - - - tion of the Coordinated Federal Wage System Whidh - is - Scheduled for this area in iver of 1970.-- , 4. The prébisn is iiieics dgerav ated by the spank _ interim adjustment a8 per OCMMNOTE.12531 OCMM ‘ 0333 I:ejs of 4 April 1969 whith will result in further misalignment between Aircraft Examiners.and the vlosely related Positions of Planner’ and Estimaters. 5. It is strongly recommended, that the differential be increased prior to implementation of the Coordinated . Federal Wage System,‘even prior to the final decision on whether or not the enclosute (1) pasitions should remaia in the ungraded category, = - eae W. D. FARNSWORTH + oan O Blind. copy oe 'N ational peer ie of encrencas . Examiners, Local No. 4 (w/o encl) . __~ talking about? ” EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF ‘WILLIAM N. PRICE - MES... Ceteenani “? .* (Tr. p. 118) Q.- Now, when -that audit was completed, did you: have further duties and responsibilities concerning the Pt request for an-increase in the differential? _ A. Yes. I¢ was then my. responsibility to éxamine Mr. Webb's findings and those of our other auditor on _ the West Coast and comé‘up with a final recommenda- " | »tion as to whetheg the differential should be.changed or “ ‘ not. ot : ; = “a fe 3 E : * neuen 2 ~~ "Did your office; represénting the- Navy: Department, come to a°’Cconclusion+as.to whether or not, bearing in -~ - mind. ‘the appropriate criteria, the differential. dt that - time should be increased? : . , . . _.. A. There was considerable discussion. The. tenta- . ’ tive conclusions that I came to personally related to rela- tions within the Navy -Department. Nothing was put in | writing about these, and following a discussion with the” . Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Civil « ‘ . = ee ue mae | Pee ee ee ie _ » Q. What was his position at that tirtie or did he. ., have duties with reference to the subject matter we are ‘ PO wee” . a "EFS — + ae ¢ oO EXCERPTS FROM TH THE TESTIMONY OF a ‘GORDON N. KELLETT - Q And what did you tell ini? fe And I réstated the original position of the. Civil’ Service ‘Commission, that the Airgraft . Examiners, amongst 2*numbér of other occupations that the Navy had paid-a pay differential, were set aside for further _+ study and they would not be included when wWe converted the other General Wage Board employees ta the Coordi- - nated Federal Wage System beginning in July of 1968. _* . . = c * (Tr. p: 198) . ree at ee -Q. Well, jum ing from the complaint- for a - «moment did Mr. William Price tell you the Navy wanted. - “to give them an increase and ask you—cther - than- the: - _ interimi increase, now, before You get to the interim ~ increase, did. Mr. Price tell you that they wanted to raise the 16. percent differential and ask you—could they do ; - ‘it and you, for Civil Service, said, “No; we-don’t want: - you tq do it because. we don’t want ‘anybody to change until we get this new system implemented”? Mic ~ ~ _*- A. Mr: Price, if 1 recall, asked if. they would pro- pose, make a Particular shange, would we. object. fe, * ° * And what did you téll him? . (. a a ; : A. Tiaid, “Yes; we wouldeobjeét,”— cm. : oe 3 ee eae aae “ ‘Q/ -All right - Tt wee | —o —— , ss » & i they proposed a = aS ear ee ia oe Q, All right... 4 = ae Now, F want to ask you thin Mr. Kellett: The i | 28a. | oe - eee - \ oe ee : ~ — — oS ’- . ~ Civil Service -Commission’s position not to raise ‘any- : . thing or if the Navy proposed it—was that based on an audit of the duties and responsibilities of thesé men or was that a blanket objection to changing anything until “not the duties and responsibilities: justified an increase; it-was your position that you‘didn’t want to rock the boat?. A. ae Sir. 7 ee en . : e. 7 hi hig : . i 5 oo vie A CEE MR SO ee Ra Q. And in the meantime it’s the Commission’s con-- = tinuing position that the Aircraft Examiners not be i Taised, ifthe Navy should Propose to do that, ‘until at. least the new. Pa eee greek = (Tr. p. 202) system comés into effect? ase _ A.” No, sir, bécause-wé have alread} begun to study: | Wwe. are studying—the Aircraft Examiners as well as _ 4 Inspectors, Production Planners, those that are set aside.* - We have a two-phase ‘study: under Way, one 8 *~ ‘which will cover practices, ‘survey practices, in industry , mes *. to find out how they. treat’ thése particular occupations ~. . _ both from a .job evaluation and a Pay system operation, ‘ a a ie eae SS. a is | oe and at the same time I have occupatio work for me,that are reviewing. she federal jobs, Aircraft, | Examiners— Been cA Asa mater of fact, ‘in the lace few aie one of my occupational specialists had surveyed, ‘interviewed, . people on the- job. at Sen. and’ they interviewed: others,— oc x ee * (Ee eee eh Ww el Peace oo 3 =~and. ie anticipate when we have the other: jobs as well as the pay practices we will resglve this par-- ticular issue that will decide how th@’ll- conde under the Coordinated Federal ‘Wage System, and our target for that has been Se. as s January 1971, ~ > ee a a; - atic AS - st. te : lat Spccialisis Ulat --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0385%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.